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

Re: hasProvenance property name [MAYBE URGENT]

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:46:42 +0000
Message-ID: <512CA0A2.3050002@ninebynine.org>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, 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>
I would favour prov:has_provenance over prov:hasprovenance or prov:provenance.

I have a concern that prov:provenance reads more like a class name than a 
property/relation.  Also, can we be sure that, in future, someone won't want to 
define prov:Provenance as a class of some kind?  (Because of the case 
insensitive matching defined by RFC5988, and arguably good practice generally, 
the capitalized form should be off-limits for future use if prov:provenance is 
selected.

#g
--


On 26/02/2013 10:51, Paul Groth wrote:
> That seems to be the best way then.
>
> so prov:hasprovenance or prov:has_provenance
>
> ?
>
> Paul
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> 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 11:47:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 26 February 2013 11:47:27 GMT