- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:48:17 -0500
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Feb 14, 2012, at 4:33 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. -1 leans towards bloat > > I also take the view that if we have an id then we have attributes, and vice-versa. I agree. > > As a minimum, subtyping would be useful for these relations. The subtyping can be placed onto your Note(id,[prov:type = "my subtype"). This would let you reuse the same hadAnnotation relation. -Tim > 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 13:48:58 UTC