W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > November 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-142 (Tlebo): Can roles only be Literals? [Data Model]

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 10:49:08 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|82baaba80fe10d6528e4be62351d3f34nA7AnB08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4EB90924.9030003@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi,

I guess we mean
"http://example.org/foo"^^rdf:Resource

as http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource

Can this be confirmed?

Thanks,
Luc

On 11/08/2011 08:28 AM, Paolo Missier wrote:
> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>

-- 
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 Tuesday, 8 November 2011 10:49:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:04 UTC