Re: hasProvenance property name [MAYBE URGENT]

Do you mean the element that is generated into the header of the HTML? If that is the only place it appears, I think we can change that for the published PR document before handing it over to the webmaster.

Ivan

On Feb 26, 2013, at 10:42 , Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> 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
> 
> 


----
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 10:14:15 UTC