- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:10:52 +0000
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Luc, Please feel free to close issue 140, however this plays out. Separately, I have a slight concern with the phrasing I see here that might suggest that all (entity) attributes are characterization (in light of the discussion to not discriminate between characterizing and non-characterizing attributes) - I'll need to look at the wider context to form a definite view, but I was thinking that something like: [[ Attribute-value pairs are introduced to associate additional information with entities and activities. ]] Might avoid the possible confusion. #g -- On 07/11/2011 22:48, Luc Moreau wrote: > > Dear all, > > Again, in the interest of simplification, we would like to make the following > proposal. > Can you express your support for the proposal, or if you have issue with it, > explain what > the concern is. > > Thanks, > Luc > > > Context: > Attribute-value pairs are introduced to provide characterizations of entities > and activities. > Name-value pairs are used to for qualifiers for use/generation/etc > > Proposal: Use a single notion of attribute-value pairs to characterize entities, > activities, use > and generation. As a result, drop the notion of qualifier and its associated > production. > > Cheers, > Luc > > PS. A consequence of this, is that we will use a uniform syntax for attributes > in entities and > uses/generation, and hence, hopefully address Graham's ISSUE-140 > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/140 >
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 16:16:56 UTC