Re: PROV-ISSUE-180 (TLebo): defaults to prov:steps="n" causes issue in PROV-O [prov-dm]

Hi Stian,
It's in prov-dm:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#dfn-steps

Now, it it helps, we could use values 'single' and 'multiple' instead of 
1 and n (which
for the purpose of prov-dm were regarded as strings).

Luc

On 22/12/11 06:19, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>
> it is a PROV-DM issue because it us not clear if the default applies 
> to PROV-ASN or PROV-DM. From your statement in the below email it 
> sounds like ASN, from text DM.
>
> I personally find this attribute very confusing. It hints that steps=3 
> would be allowed, but only. values 1 and n are described. If this is 
> really a boolean meaning "known to be single step" then I would think 
> of something along those lines instead of pretending it is an integer.
>
> (Note that we are also used to interpret n in x=n-1 as "insert your 
> count here")
>
> On Dec 20, 2011 10:45 AM, "Luc Moreau" <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk 
> <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Tim,
>
>     How do you map prov:steps to prov-o?  Your mapping could require
>     this property
>     to be mandatory, and not rely on a default value.
>
>     Is this really a prov-dm issue?
>
>     Best regards,
>     Luc
>
>     On 12/02/2011 07:28 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
>         PROV-ISSUE-180 (TLebo): defaults to prov:steps="n" causes
>         issue in PROV-O [prov-dm]
>
>         http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/180
>
>         Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>         On product: prov-dm
>
>         Imposing a "default" value for prov:steps will cause issues in
>         PROV-O, which embraces the open world.
>
>         > From [1]:
>
>         "It is optional to include the attribute prov:steps in an
>         imprecise-n derivation record. It defaults to prov:steps="n"."
>
>
>         An OWL axiom such as "imprecise-n derivation records must have
>         values of prov:step that are integers greater than 1" can be
>         done, and if an instance of Derivation is typed to
>         "imprecise-n derivation record", then one knows that it has
>         more than one step -- even when no prov:step has been asserted.
>
>
>         If this OWL approach is taken, would we be violating the DM's
>         "It defaults to prov:steps="n"."?
>
>         Thanks,
>         Tim
>
>         [1]
>         http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/ProvenanceModel.html#Derivation-Relation
>
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     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
>     <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>     United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>     <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm>
>
>