- From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 09:28:26 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Luc, Jim I think Luc is formally right but again, to anyone wearing SW glasses, the examples /look like/ RFD Literals. So I suggest to state in the section that Typed Literals in DM are expressed using a combination of a string and datatype iri. And state explicitly that this follows RDF convention but are not to be confused with RDF literals. and give the counter example: "http://example.org/foo"^^rdf:resource as a valid Literal --Paolo On 11/8/11 8:44 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > You are mixing concrete syntax and abstract syntax. All typed literals in prov-dm have a string and a datatype iri. It also applies to int, float, etc for which there is no syntactic sugar either in the ASN. Why should we make a distinction for resources? > > Professor Luc Moreau > Electronics and Computer Science > University of Southampton > Southampton SO17 1BJ > United Kingdom > > On 8 Nov 2011, at 06:40, "Jim McCusker"<mccusj@rpi.edu> wrote: > >> If you're going to directly reference RDF Resource, just use the >> accepted syntax for it (like you did with the other literals), which >> is what I used. >> >> Jim >> >> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 1:25 AM, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >>> It seems that you want to write >>> "http://example.org/foo"^^rdf:resource >>> or similar. >>> >>> >>> Professor Luc Moreau >>> Electronics and Computer Science >>> University of Southampton >>> Southampton SO17 1BJ >>> United Kingdom >>> >>> On 8 Nov 2011, at 00:27, "Jim McCusker"<mccusj@rpi.edu<mailto:mccusj@rpi.edu>> wrote: >>> >>> These are syntactically RDF literals: >>> >>> "abc" >>> "abc"@en >>> "abc"^^xsd:string >>> "1"^^xsd:int >>> "http://example.org/foo"^^xsd:anyURI >>> >>> Maybe they're also PROV-DM literals, but then you should support the >>> following URI "literals": >>> >>> <http://example.org> >>> >>> Jim >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote: >>> No Jim, they are prov-dm literals, "leaves" as you said. >>> I thought you would map a prov-dm URi literal into an rdf resource. >>> >>> Professor Luc Moreau >>> Electronics and Computer Science >>> University of Southampton >>> Southampton SO17 1BJ >>> United Kingdom >>> >>> On 7 Nov 2011, at 23:35, "Jim McCusker"<mccusj@rpi.edu<mailto:mccusj@rpi.edu>> wrote: >>> >>> The examples are all RDF literals. I thought that we weren't using any >>> RDF in the DM... >>> >>> Jim >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote: >>> Hi Tim, Stephan, Jim, >>> >>> Here is a first draft of the literal section. >>> >>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#record-literal >>> >>> It would be good to have your feedback. >>> If you find it's ok, than the literals examples in the document need to be >>> checked. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Luc >>> >>> On 07/11/11 18:15, Jim McCusker wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Paolo Missier<Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk<mailto:Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> DM says: >>> >>> 5.5.5 Literal >>> >>> Literals represent data values such as particular string or integers. >>> >>> My understanding is it's always been used in the standard grammar >>> production >>> meaning (eg: http://savage.net.au/SQL/sql-2003-2.bnf.html#literal). Not >>> so? >>> >>> >>> I think a clearer definition would be: >>> >>> A Provenance Literal is a "leaf" value. It does not explicitly have >>> any outgoing relations (in SW-ish: Is not a subject of any statement) >>> in the PROV data model. Any outgoing relations from a Provenance >>> Literal is out of scope for the PROV DM. >>> >>> Jim >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2011 08:28:52 UTC