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

suggested resolution ISSUE-508 (Table 5)

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 21:52:59 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRrmC64g4ND1SopBBbvxYeKgcVg7D-BF1uEup=2eWL6vNA@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


"The bolded rows have some attributes listed in bold and some in
normal font, presumably to indicate mandatory/optional status. This
should be mentioned in the text.

The child relationships (e.g., revision) would be easier to see if
their name were indented relative to their parent.

This table highlights the inconsistent attribute syntax. The combined
use of positional attributes and attribute/value pairs (used for
context-dependent optional attributes) is a little awkward."

ISSUE-508 (Table 5)

Original email:

Tracker: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/508

Group Response
- The text indeed required clarification: "core structures have their
names and parameters highlighted in bold in the second column (prov-n
representation); expanded structures are not represented with a bold

- Indentation of subconcepts had been considered by the editors. While
it appears beneficial to see Revision, Quotation, and Primary Source
indented below Derivation, this would lead to confusion elsewhere in
the table:

-- Plans (in component 3) are subtype of Entity, but entities belong
to component 1. Indenting Plan under another concept would therefore
be misleading.

-- Person/Organization/SoftwareAgent could be indented below agents.
However, our preference is to list core structures first, before
expanded structures.

-- Finally, Influence could be see as super-relation of many
relations, but, again, they are spread across components, and
Influence is regarded as an expanded structures.

- Overall, there are multiple, conflicting ways of organizing table 5.
We feel that this order of structures allows components to be exposed
and core structures to be presented first, without attempting to
expose a hierarchy of types, which would require an entirely different

- PROV-DM follows the syntax specified by PROV-N. Regarding the style
of encoding of attributes, this issue is already raised against the
PROV-N document (issue-533).

- See issue-533: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/533

Implemented changes:

Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
Assistant Professor
- Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group |
  Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
- The Network Institute
VU University Amsterdam
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 19:53:27 UTC

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