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: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 12:38:39 -0500
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <426AE6DF-BAF4-4A13-B5B9-BDF3B54D1083@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
I am content with how the following statements address the relation between DM literal and RDFS Literal:

" A PROV-DM Literal represents a value whose interpretation is outside the scope of PROV-DM. "

"In particular, 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."

The language and datatyping grammar seems a bit excessive, but I have no objections.


On Nov 7, 2011, at 5:19 PM, 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 Tuesday, 22 November 2011 17:39:08 UTC

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