- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:17:30 -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>
That sounds reasonable. Then clients that do care about the subtypes can access it and treat them differently. -Tim On Feb 14, 2012, at 9:03 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > A compromise is to only allow for the prov:type attribute, and no id. > This allows for easy mapping to rdf. > > > Professor Luc Moreau > Electronics and Computer Science > University of Southampton > Southampton SO17 1BJ > United Kingdom > > > On 14 Feb 2012, at 13:53, "Luc Moreau" <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Hi Tim >> But what about sub typing of alternateOf? >> >> Professor Luc Moreau >> Electronics and Computer Science >> University of Southampton >> Southampton SO17 1BJ >> United Kingdom >> >> >> On 14 Feb 2012, at 13:48, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: >> >>> >>> 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 14:18:16 UTC