- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:51:58 +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, Response interleaved. On 02/14/2012 10:29 AM, James Cheney wrote: > What's the use case? More generally, in WD3 at least, there are no examples of alternateOf or specializationOf in use (with or without attributes). > > You will recall that this is the first draft of this section with alternateOf and specializationOf ... I think that for prov-dm, we are coming to the conclusion that we will not define whether these relations are symmetric/transitive etc. Some communities may want to define specialized version that are symmetric/transitive. > If we want to make things really uniform, we could identify a common "template" for all of the record forms > > record(id, blah, blah, ... , attrs) > > Essentially, that's the template we followed, with blah, blah varying for each record type. > Most of the rules in ProvRDF have this form already. > > Ultimately, it's a design decision for the WG. 1. Do we adopt a common pattern for all elements and relations? 2. Do we 'customize' relations according to use cases we have encountered (which would mean, potentially, dropping attributes/ids for hasAnnotation/alternatedOf) I can see pros and cons for a common pattern approach: pluses: - simpler to understand for the user, no special case - systematic handling of mapping to rdf/xml/etc - attributes are the key mechanism for extensibility, and hence it's good to have them minuses: - not obvious (now!) how attributes can be used in some cases - may force the introduction of an OWL class, which wouldn't be required otherwise Luc > --James > > On Feb 14, 2012, at 9:33 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > > >> 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 >> >> >> >> > > -- 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 10:53:54 UTC