On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 15:57, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: > FWIW, changes to the PROV-N signatures in the ProvRDF page such as: > > |asnExpression([id],e,[a],[t],[attrs]) > + > |asnExpression(id,e,a,t,[attr_1=val_1, ...]) > > and > > |entity(id, [ attr1=val1, ...]) > + > entity(id, [ attr_1=val1, ...]) > > > break the automated alignment check at Uh, I did not think about that, sorry. I thought it was better they were consistent.. I got confused by :attrn (attribution??) on the right hand side, and thought an underscore would work better. I then thought I better also make every case of the attribute expansion be consistent as well. I know the [attr_1=val_1, ..., attr_n=val_n] syntax also makes each PROV-N side verbose - so I would also be OK with a general explanation at the top of the page explaining that [attrs] expands to [attr_1=val_1] .. etc. However I think it is confusing if we have attr1 -> :attr_1 - because that seem to imply that you can't reuse the property names used in PROV-N without doing a mapping. So should I propose for DM to fix this to my proposed style then..? It would not be until DM5, but it's a minor detail. -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of ManchesterReceived on Monday, 19 March 2012 09:45:14 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:10 UTC