- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 11:39:14 +0000
- To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Stian, Answer/comments appear below. On 12/01/2011 10:52 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 13:06, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > >> We believe that we have addressed this issue. The latest WD indicates that >> URI can be expressed >> using *prov-dm literal* but their interpretation is outside the scope of >> prov-dm. >> > I've checked http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/ProvenanceModel.html#record-literal > > In general this looks good. > > Grammar: "@ (U+40) by followed a nonempty sequence" -> ".. followed by a .." > > > I like "In particular, a PROV-DM Literal may be a IRI-typed string > (with datatype xsd:anyURI); such IRI has no specific interpretation in > the context of PROV-DM." > > > However there is also in the example: > > >> The following example shows a literal of type xsd:QName (see QName [XMLSCHEMA-2]). The prefix ex must be bound to a namespace declared in the record container. >> "ex:value" %% xsd:QName >> > Here there seems to be a particular interpretation for QNames (which > seems to match typical XML usage) - should this not be stated outside > the example? > > Do such QName literals have any further interpretation in PROV-DM, > such as when used with prov:type or prov:role - or when the namespace > name resolves to<http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-dm/>? > > good point, the text is not specific here. I think it should be. Above this text, there is an example, with a QName: agent(ag, [prov:type="prov:SoftwareAgent" %% xsd:QName]) We want the prefix prov to be recognized as a prefix declared in the container. > (I assume that in PROV-DM to replace such QName literals with > xsd:anyURI literals would give a different interpretation) > > > > In the PROV-ASN syntax: > > >> typedLiteral ::= quotedString %% datatype >> datatype ::= IRI >> IRI ::= an IRI compatible with production IRI in [IRI] >> > > However most examples here and elsewhere in the document use QNames or > CURIEs for the datatype - which are not covered by [IRI]: > > >> "http://example.org/foo" %% xsd:anyURI >> > I don't follow you, what do you mean not covered by IRI? > We will have to choose one or introduce extra syntax for one of them, > because some (but not many) IRIs can also be interpreted as QNames, > for instance: > > skype:soiland > h323:example.com > news:example.group.this > > > (To be fair all QNames can be parsed as anyURIs - but semantically > they are not anyURIs) > > We are not saying that QNames are URIs, far from it. We allow for asserters to use QNames and URIs, according to their preference. In Prov-dm, identifiers and attributes are defined as qualified names, and for these, we say: "A qualified name can be mapped into an IRI by concatenating the IRI associated with the prefix and the local part". Luc -- Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Thursday, 1 December 2011 11:39:54 UTC