- From: Hua, Hook (388C) <hook.hua@jpl.nasa.gov>
- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:11:41 +0000
- To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Luc, I'm curious what was the rationale for not wanting arbitrary levels of nesting of bundles? In scientific workflows, nested workflows provide a useful mechanism to hide the level of detail at arbitrary levels. Wouldn't that be conceptually similar to arbitrary levels of nested bundles? Following example 39 in http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#anexample-provenance-of-provenance I can see that not having arbitrary levels of bundle nesting would keep the provenance of provenance simpler, say, to capturing first order observations. --Hook On 9/10/12 9:36 AM, "Luc Moreau" <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >Hi Curt, > >Following discussion in prov-constraints/prov-n, we are going to rename >the toplevel bundle >a prov document, wheres the bundle (named set of statements) should >remain bundle. > >If we follow the same terminology, old:NamedBundle should become >new:Bundle >and old:Bundle should become new:Document. > >BTW Your suggestion would allow arbitrary levels of nesting of bundles, >which we don't want. > > >Cheers, >Luc > > >On 09/10/2012 05:32 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> PROV-ISSUE-549: XML Schema Bundle vs. NamedBundle [XML Serialization] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/549 >> >> Raised by: Curt Tilmes >> On product: XML Serialization >> >> What is the rationale for distinguishing Bundle vs. NamedBundle in the >> current XSD Schema? >> >> Why not just have an optional prov:id on Bundle and just have one type? >> >> >> >> > >-- >Professor Luc Moreau >Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 >University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 >Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk >United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm > >
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2012 08:15:24 UTC