W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > September 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-505: Data Model Section 3 [prov-dm]

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:49:21 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|c0deb5242293c2a89870f225c83dd1b5o8HAnP08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|505843A1.8080905@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
CC: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>

Dear all,

I drafted a response to issue-505 on the wiki:
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-505_.28prov-n_notation.29

It is copied below for your convenience.
Comments, suggestions?

Luc


      ISSUE-505 (prov-n notation)

  * Original
    email:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Sep/0095.html
  * Tracker:http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/505
  * Group Response
      o The normative reference for the prov notation is the PROV-N
        document.
      o PROV-DM follows the syntax of specified by PROV-N. In
        particular, optional identifiers are followed by a semi-colon.
      o Regarding the style of encoding of attributes, this issue is
        already raised against the PROV-N document (issue-533).
  * Proposed changes: none
  * References:
      o optionalIdentifier
        prduction:http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-n/#prod-optionalIdentifier
      o See issue-533:http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/533


    [edit
    <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/index.php?title=ResponsesToPublicComments&action=edit&section=13>]



On 09/10/2012 09:36 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-505: Data Model Section 3   [prov-dm]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/505
>
> Raised by: Luc Moreau
> On product: prov-dm
>
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/LC_Feedback#Data_Model_Section_3
>
> ISSUE-463
>
>
> "PROV-N is a notation aimed at human consumption … The interpretation of PROV-N arguments is defined according to their position in the list of arguments. This convention allows for a compact notation." IMO, the goal of human consumption trumps compact notation and using positional arguments hinders the former for the benefit of the latter. See also my comments on the PROV-N spec, especially regarding named attributes.
>
> Example 15 shows a semicolon used to separate the optional identifier from the rest of the arguments. This is not consistent with the PROV-N spec.
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
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 Tuesday, 18 September 2012 09:49:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 September 2012 09:49:54 GMT