- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:21:02 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org, tthibodeau@openlinksw.com
Hi Ted, Thanks for your input. We are having active discussions to handle optional arguments uniformly and elegantly. This relation follows the same pattern as the others. So, the solution we come up with should handle this case. Thanks, Luc On 04/19/2012 03:56 PM, Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote: > On Apr 17, 2012, at 12:13 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: > > >> Dear all, >> >> Following last week's teleconference, Paul, Paolo, Tim and I have revisited the proposal on >> invalidation. >> >> Your feedback would be useful. Can you express in the usual way if you support it? and if not, what >> issue you have this proposal. >> >> If there is support, we would like to consider this section as part of the prov-dm release, provided >> that we can also adjust prov-o and prov-n. >> >> Regards, >> Luc >> >> >> >> [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-invalidation.html >> >> -- >> Professor Luc Moreau >> Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 >> University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 >> Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk >> United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm >> > > > This meets with my general expectation and approval. > > I'm concerned about the notation of wasInvalidatedBy(), > currently -- > > wasInvalidatedBy([id,]e[,a][,t][,attrs]) > > It seems to me that optional components are best reflected by > an empty position when left out -- > > wasInvalidatedBy([id], e, [a], [t], [attrs]) > > > Thus, when the optional id is left out, as in the first example, > the notation should read -- > > wasInvalidatedBy( , ex:The-Painter, ex:crash, > 1998-09-02, [ex:circumstances="plane accident"]) > > Relatedly, I'm not familiar enough with this notation style > to say whether the above is more or less incorrect than the > second example -- > > wasInvalidatedBy(ex:bbcNews2012-04-03,-,2012-04-03T23:59:59) > > Note the lack of spaces following the commas, and the hyphen > signifying the omitted [a] ... > > The latter string is much harder for a human (the intended > audience of this notation) to parse, and the spaces are invalid > within identifiers and timestamps, so I think they are good to > have (and therefore I've included them in my revised primitive). > > Niggling inconsistencies like this are painful to find and fix, > but vital to the success of docs like we're producing here. > > Regards, > > Ted > > > > -- > A: Yes. http://www.guckes.net/faq/attribution.html > | Q: Are you sure? > | | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. > | | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? > > Ted Thibodeau, Jr. // voice +1-781-273-0900 x32 > Senior Support& Evangelism // mailto:tthibodeau@openlinksw.com > // http://twitter.com/TallTed > OpenLink Software, Inc. // http://www.openlinksw.com/ > 10 Burlington Mall Road, Suite 265, Burlington MA 01803 > Weblog -- http://www.openlinksw.com/blogs/ > LinkedIn -- http://www.linkedin.com/company/openlink-software/ > Twitter -- http://twitter.com/OpenLink > Google+ -- http://plus.google.com/100570109519069333827/ > Facebook -- http://www.facebook.com/OpenLinkSoftware > Universal Data Access, Integration, and Management Technology Providers > > > > > > > > -- Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2012 15:21:39 UTC