- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:42:24 +0000
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
It's in the <link> element we added last week. On 26/02/2013 09:40, Ivan Herman wrote: > 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 > > > > > > -- 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, 26 February 2013 09:42:56 UTC