- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 21:51:12 +0200
- To: "Freimuth, Robert, Ph.D." <Freimuth.Robert@mayo.edu>
- Cc: public-prov-comments@w3.org
Dear Robert Thank you for your comment. Below is the suggested resolution. Please let us know if you are fine with it. You can find any suggested changes in the latest editor's draft at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html Thanks, Paul ISSUE-505 (prov-n notation) ""PROV-N is a notation aimed at human consumption The interpretation of PROV-N arguments is defined according to their position in the list of arguments. This convention allows for a compact notation." IMO, the goal of human consumption trumps compact notation and using positional arguments hinders the former for the benefit of the latter. See also my comments on the PROV-N spec, especially regarding named attributes. Example 15 shows a semicolon used to separate the optional identifier from the rest of the arguments. This is not consistent with the PROV-N spec." - Original email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Sep/0095.html - Tracker: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/505 Group Response - The normative reference for the prov notation is the PROV-N document. - PROV-DM follows the syntax specified by PROV-N. In particular, optional identifiers are followed by a semi-colon. - Regarding the style of encoding of attributes, this issue is already raised against the PROV-N document (issue-533). References: - optionalIdentifier prduction: http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-n/#prod-optionalIdentifier - See issue-533: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/533 Proposed changes: none
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 19:51:40 UTC