- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 12:41:38 -0500
- To: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On Nov 8, 2011, at 3:28 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 since rdf:resource doesn't exist as a datatype, perhaps use dm:Resource or similar? -Tim > > --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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > > >
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2011 17:42:34 UTC