Re: PROV response to comment on bundles and ids

Hi Satra

So we don't allow the nesting of bundles to avoid complications about there interpretation.  Thus, in prov-n we introduced the notion of document as a container for all statements that are not part if a bundle.

We can add your example as something that is invalid. One needs to redeclare the namespace prefix.

Thanks
Paul

On Oct 27, 2012, at 14:51, Satrajit Ghosh <satra@mit.edu> wrote:

> thanks for the clarification. i think it would be useful to add the following invalid example as well unless the following is indeed valid.
> 
> ---
> document
>  prefix ex <http://example.org/>
>  bundle ex:b1
>     entity(ex:e1, ...someattr1...)
>     entity(ex:e1, ...someattr2...)
>  endBundle
> endDocument
> ---
> 
> on a side note, this is the first time i'm seeing the Document/endDocument construct, why not another Bunde/endBundle?
> 
> cheers,
> 
> satra
> 
> 
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:
>> Hi Satra,
>> 
>> Thanks for your active engagement with helping improve W3C PROV. We have taken a look at your comment:
>> 
>> "if one were implementing a database storing prov bundles, would we have to ensure that IDs don't clash in the database insertion code? or is the understanding that IDs are only meant to be unique within a given bundle context?"
>> 
>> You can find our response here:
>> 
>> 1.1.33 ISSUE-482 (Bundles and IDs)
>> 
>> As part of the W3C process, we need to have an acknowledgement from you that our response solves your comment or if not a bit of description as to why. Could you provide that for us?
>> 
>> Thanks again for all your help,
>> Paul
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> --
>> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
>> Assistant Professor
>> - Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group | 
>>   Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
>> - The Network Institute
>> VU University Amsterdam
>