W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-comments@w3.org > September 2012

suggested resolution ISSUE-505

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 21:51:12 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRqhP3vRvDtCtQYJf18h2O1aOw7H2FmUqRgCGAmRsoKhSA@mail.gmail.com>
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


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

- Original email:

- 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).

- optionalIdentifier prduction:
- 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:50:04 UTC