- From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:37:10 +0000
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- CC: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Tim, as Luc pointed out, this has not to do with readability, it is just misleading to use that syntax as part of actual assertions. That notation lives in the grammar, not in the strings of the language. -Paolo On 3/5/12 1:21 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote: > Luc, > > Thanks for considering. > > I was making the suggestion based on the small group of readers trying to understand the DM; it helped make it more consumable. > > -Tim > > On Mar 5, 2012, at 3:27 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > >> Hi Tim >> >> I suppose you mean the notation wasGeneratedBy([id],e,[a],[t],[attrs]) >> instead of wasGeneratedBy(id,e,a,t,attrs). >> >> We discussed this with Paolo and we don't feel it's suitable since whenever >> we write wasGeneratedBy(id,e,a,t,attrs), we mean an instance of the data model. >> >> If we want to identify the optional nature of an attribute, we need to look at the >> grammar, not at an instance. >> >> Luc >> >> PS. The square brackets around attributes do not mark they are optional, they are >> part of the syntax. >> >> On 03/02/2012 01:56 AM, Timothy Lebo wrote: >>> I would like to propose that the DM editors consider adopting the notation used in ProvRDF, since the PROV-O team found it easier to work with and we believe that others will find it easier as well. >>> >>> >> -- >> 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 >> >> >> > -- ----------- ~oo~ -------------- Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, UK http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 13:37:35 UTC