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: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:31:46 +0000
Message-ID: <4EBC26A2.3040008@ncl.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Backing off from URIs altogether for what we are calling names/literals seems sensible to me.

-Paolo


  On 11/10/11 3:02 PM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> 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


-- 
-----------  ~oo~  --------------
Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org
School of Computing Science, Newcastle University,  UK
http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 19:32:22 UTC

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