W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2013

Re: hasProvenance property name [MAYBE URGENT]

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:40:46 +0100
Cc: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-Id: <145B8F56-6FA7-471A-A926-67AF3ED229E1@w3.org>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Graham,

I am not sure I understand something.

I have looked at the prov-o document, and that document does not mention the prov:hasProvenance term. Ie, where does this term appear in any of the four Rec-track documents? More importantly, does it appear, if it does, in a normative section?

Ivan


On Feb 26, 2013, at 10:30 , Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> [I'm keeping this off-list for now, because if Ivan says there's nothing we can do at this juncture, I see little point in opening the issue for wider discussion.  I am cc'ing www-archive so there's a record of our discussion.]
> 
> This is a bit embarrassing, given an email I wrote just a couple of days ago.
> 
> I'm working through comments on PROV-AQ, and Stian has raised the following:
> 
> [[
> 32) According to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-4.2
> 
> When extension relation types are compared, they MUST be compared as
>   strings (after converting to URIs if serialised in a different
>   format, such as a Curie [W3C.CR-curie-20090116]) in a case-
>   insensitive fashion, character-by-character.  Because of this, all-
>   lowercase URIs SHOULD be used for extension relations.
> 
> Should we not have relation URIs that are all lowercase to avoid problems?  ie.
> 
> Link: <http://acme.example.org/provenance/super-widget>;
>           rel="http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hasprovenance"
> ]]
> 
> I had completely missed this in RFC5988, and had forgotten about Stian's comment when I replied a couple of days ago.
> 
> If we hadn't just been through the incorporation of provenance links into the published documents, I'd suggest changing "hasProvenance" to "has_provenance" to avoid the problems noted.
> 
> So, what now?  I see a few options:
> 
> (a) keep the same name, and simply note that, when used as a link relation, prov:hasProvenance is compared case-insensitively.
> (b) if it's not too late, change the property name
> (c) define a second property that is all lowercase, and declared equivalent to the first.
> 
> As far as I can tell, the main consequence of going with option (a) is that we MUST NOT in future define a different property/relation prov:hasprovenance, as under some circumstances covered by RFC5988, this would be indistinguishable from prov:hasProvenance.
> 
> Given where we now are, my inclination would be to stay with things as they are, but add a note reserving the all lower-case versions of prov:hasProvenance, etc., from future use because of the case insensitivity comparison requirement.
> 
> #g
> --


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 09:41:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 26 February 2013 09:41:22 GMT