- From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 09:57:09 -0700
- To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Thanks Stian. Good suggestions on the text edits. I will make the updates today. --Stephan On Feb 14, 2013, at 8:37 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > It looks good! > > I've updated and tested the examples at > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/59d3339f4090/xml/examples which all > validate. > > <foaf:name> now works great - a downside is that any unknown elements > in a schemaed non-prov namespace is allowed as well, like: > <dcterms:madeup>Oh oh</dcterms:madeup> > > (I thought this was not allowed in 'lax' when the schema for a > namespace was known, but perhaps Eclipse is being silly.) Anyway I > think it's a compromise that is worthwhile. It still fails if I go > against a custom type - like on line 31 in: > > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/59d3339f4090/xml/examples/custom-example.xml#l31 > > > I would change the intro slightly: > >> A prov:Bundle is an extension of prov:Entity that can be associated with a set of nested provenance statements, which is represented by the prov:BundleConstructor complexType and referenced with the prov:bundleContent element. Provenance statements may be made about the set by referencing the associated entity. > > to > > "A prov:Bundle identifies a set of provenance descriptions, and is an > extension of prov:Entity, so allowing provenance of provenance to be > expressed by referencing the associated entity. The content of a > bundle, ie. its provenance records, can be represented by the > prov:BundleConstructor complexType and can be specified with the > prov:bundleContent element, its prov:id corresponds to the bundle > entity." > > > (What I want to imply is that you can use either <prov:bundle> or > <prov:bundleContent> or, ideally, both. ) > > > > Later: > >> The element prov:bundleContent is used to reference a set of nested provenance statements from within a prov:Document. > > > Then we should probably add something like: > > "Although bundle content can only be represented at <prov:document> > level, the corresponding bundle entities may be specified at any > <prov:bundle> nesting level, if at all." > > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 6:12 AM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote: >> Yes. >> >> --Stephan >> >> On Feb 13, 2013, at 11:02 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Stephan. Is the document ready or review? >>> >>> Professor Luc Moreau >>> Electronics and Computer Science >>> University of Southampton >>> Southampton SO17 1BJ >>> United Kingdom >>> >>> On 14 Feb 2013, at 00:21, "Stephan Zednik" <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Luc, >>>> >>>> Because time is running down on getting the PROV-XML Note ready for the next release I went ahead and updated the editors draft with the discussed changes. >>>> >>>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/xml/prov-xml.html >>>> >>>> I have added sections to the design patterns section concerning the schema modularity and the conventions on type information. >>>> >>>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/xml/prov-xml.html#schema-modularization >>>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/xml/prov-xml.html#type-conventions >>>> >>>> I have also update the Bundles section with the design that Stian and I have most recently been discussing and which I think will be satisfactory to you. I did rename the element to bundleContent as Stian suggested because it reads much better than bundleConstructor. >>>> >>>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/xml/prov-xml.html#component4 >>>> >>>> Please let me know if you would like me to change anything. I tried to make the text in the bundle section clear but it's wording may not align with your interpretation. >>>> >>>> I have also made several other update to the document including updating the SOTD section, please refer to the Change Log section at the bottom for a summary of changes. >>>> >>>> --Stephan >>>> >>>> On Feb 13, 2013, at 9:43 AM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>>> How about the following changes? More discussion of the bundleConstructor referencing element name below. >>>>> >>>>> <xs:complexType name="Bundle"> >>>>> <xs:complexContent> >>>>> <xs:extension base="prov:Entity"> >>>>> </xs:extension> >>>>> </xs:complexContent> >>>>> </xs:complexType> >>>>> >>>>> <xs:complexType name="BundleConstructor"> >>>>> <xs:sequence maxOccurs="unbounded"> >>>>> <xs:group ref="prov:documentElements"/> >>>>> <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> >>>>> </xs:sequence> >>>>> <xs:attribute ref="prov:id"/> >>>>> </xs:complexType> >>>>> >>>>> <xs:element name="document" type="prov:Document" /> >>>>> <xs:complexType name="Document"> >>>>> <xs:sequence maxOccurs="unbounded"> >>>>> <xs:group ref="prov:documentElements" minOccurs="0"/> >>>>> <xs:element name="bundleConstructor" type="prov:BundleConstructor" minOccurs="0"/> >>>>> <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" minOccurs="0" /> >>>>> </xs:sequence> >>>>> </xs:complexType> >>>>> >>>>> The group prov:documentElements does not contain a reference to prov:BundleConstructor. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 13, 2013, at 2:50 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> In section 5.4.2, >>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-prov-dm-20121211/#term-bundle-entity, you will >>>>>>> see the sentence: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A bundle description is of the form entity(id, [ prov:type='prov:Bundle', >>>>>>> attr1=val1, ...] ) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I therefore think it would be very confusing to use the term >>>>>>> bundleDescriptions to refer to the constructor of section 5.4.1 >>>>>> >>>>>> Agreed. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> A bundle constructor ◊ allows the content and the name of a bundle to be specified >>>>>> >>>>>> what about <bundleContent> then? I think that should make distinction >>>>>> with <bundle> obvious, more so than the 'constructor' which you would >>>>>> have to read PROV-DM with a lens to understand. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thus in a way everything in PROV-XML is a description, <bundle> is a >>>>>> bundle description, and <bundleContent> describes the content of the >>>>>> bundle (ie. further PROV statements). >>>>> >>>>> With the modeling suggestion above I use prov:bundleConstructor, but like Stian I am not a big fan of how it reads in XML. >>>>> >>>>> I like the following (in order of preference): >>>>> >>>>> bundleContent >>>>> bundleRecords >>>>> bundleStatements >>>>> >>>>> --Stephan >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team >>>>>> School of Computer Science >>>>>> The University of Manchester > > > > -- > Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team > School of Computer Science > The University of Manchester > >
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2013 16:57:51 UTC