- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:33:26 +0000
- To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- CC: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi James, I think it was an oversight on our behalf (Paolo and I) not to include an id for alternateOf/specializationOf. In our working copy, http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/towards-wd4.html we have added them. I also take the view that if we have an id then we have attributes, and vice-versa. As a minimum, subtyping would be useful for these relations. You will also recall, very early discussions about mapping of attributes for IVPof. This could also be encoded with attributes. Cheers, Luc On 02/14/2012 09:18 AM, James Cheney wrote: > While we're on the subject, I'm no sure why alternateOf and specializationOf have attributes now, other than uniformity. > > I think that if the relation has an id describing the relationship (used/Usage, rtc.) Then attributes make sense. If an id doesn't make sense then attributes don't either - in RDF we need an id to hang the attributess off of. > > I think that brevity should take precedence over uniformity, else we'll reinvent RDF or XML. > > --James > > > -- 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 Tuesday, 14 February 2012 09:34:06 UTC