Re: PROV-ISSUE-62 (about-prov-language): about provenance language [Conceptual Model]

My comment was made somewhat on the fly as I was reading the document.  I 
probably over-reacted in suggesting the use of identifiers was "inappropriate".

But as I was reading this, I felt that I was being asked to make a shift of 
mental perspective when the text started to talk about "identifier scope".  For 
the purposes of data modelling, I would say that where identifiers are 
mentioned, their context of appearance is part of their identity as identifiers 
(if that makes sense).  Scoping is a *linguistic* technique used to disambiguate 
different appearances of the same character string used as as a different 
identifier in different contexts.

Rather than argue the merits of the point as narrowly described, I'd suggest 
standing back and trying to ensure the text is focusing on the points that need 
to be addressed.

#g
--


Luc Moreau wrote:
> 
> Hi Graham,
> 
> 
> On 07/29/2011 10:09 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> As such I think it's entirely inappropriate to start
>> defining linguistic constructs such as identifiers and scoping.
>> Assuming the actual language used will be RDF, I'm not seeing how what
>> you describe will be possible.
>>
>>    
> Why is it inappropriate?
> 
> I don't think we define what identifiers are, per se, btw.
> 
> Are you suggesting we do not mention them at all?
> Are you suggesting that we don't write either that construct XYZ 
> contains identifier id?
> 
> Assuming it's acceptable to mention identifiers, I feel it's not 
> unreasonable to mention
> their scope.
> 
> Now, it should be possible to drop the notion of identifier completely. 
> I am not against it.
> I think it would make the specification more abstract, more 
> mathematical, and less of
> a data model.
> 
> Luc
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 4 August 2011 08:41:44 UTC