- From: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:37:37 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Do we have someone talking to the RDF WG about how our model could fit in with any constructs they are introducing? If they have something we can run through then I think we should use it as a test of our ideas. cheers, Jun On 27/06/2012 14:57, James Cheney wrote: > Hi, > > I am happy with renaming contextualization to something less controversial, but renaming it to specialization seems (to me) confusing, unless it's clear that the semantics of the two variants are compatible. > > Do we have a name for the "top level" bundle in PROV (i.e., the anonymous bundle that contains the toplevel expressions), and supposing we do, is > > specializationOf(e1,e2) > > equivalent to > > specializationOf(e1,e2,toplevelBundle) > > ? > > --James > > On Jun 27, 2012, at 4:49 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > >> All, >> >> At the face to face meeting, we have agreed to rename contextualization and mark this feature >> at risk. Tim, Stephan, Paul and I have worked a solution that we now share with the working group. >> >> Given that contextualization was already defined as a kind of specialization, we now allow an optional >> bundle argument in the specialization relation. (Hence, no need to create a new concept!) >> >> See section 5.5.1 in the current Editor's draft >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-specialization >> >> Feedback welcome. >> >> Regards, >> Luc >> >> PS. Tracker, this is ISSUE-385 >> >> -- >> 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 Wednesday, 27 June 2012 14:38:06 UTC