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: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:02:48 +0000
Message-ID: <4EBBE798.6070901@ninebynine.org>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On 07/11/2011 22:19, Luc Moreau wrote:
 > Here is a first draft of the literal section.
 >
 > 
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#record-literal 


I have problems with this.

(1) The first paragraph is confusing.  Es[pecially the second sentence - what is 
this trying to say?

(2) "a PROV-DM Literal may be a URI-typed string (with datatype xsd:anyURI), or 
URI-denoted resource (with datatype rdf:Resource); in either case; such URI has 
no specific interpretation in the context of PROV-DM."

Firstly, the structure here is so close to the structure of RDF literals, that 
to then not adopt the standard RDF semantics for them is, IMO, a recipe for much 
confusion.

Secondly, the idea of using rdf:Resource as a datatype URI seems to fly in the 
face of RDF.  If you are going to explicitly use RDF URIs, I think it's crucial 
to adopt RDF semantics for them.

...

Personally, I think DM would do better to back off from specifying URIs and 
RDF-style literals, and just talk about names and literals, specifying a minimum 
that you need to express the abstract model.

The Ontology document can then carry the task of mapping the abstract model to 
RDF, which IMO would lead to a much cleaner separation of concerns.

#g
--


On 07/11/2011 22:19, Luc Moreau 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> 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 Thursday, 10 November 2011 16:16:47 UTC

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