W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > March 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-230 (Name-scoping): Name scoping in DM is wrong concept [prov-dm]

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:14:30 +0100
Message-ID: <4F6EE1F6.1040701@ninebynine.org>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On 23/03/2012 15:12, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Hi Graham,
> Nesting of accounts is no longer part of prov-dm, so name scoping has gone.
> Given this, I propose to close this issue, unless you suggest otherwise.

Thanks. I agree this should now be closed.

> FYI, identifiers, like attributes are defined to be qualified names in prov-dm [1],
> with a requirement they map to an IRI. The syntactic details of qualified
> names are left to the prov-n document.

That seems the right approach to me.


> Luc
> [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-identifier
> On 01/30/2012 11:01 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-230 (Name-scoping): Name scoping in DM is wrong concept [prov-dm]
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/230
>> Raised by: Graham Klyne
>> On product: prov-dm
>> The PROV-DM draft introduces name scoping, particularly with respect to Accounts.
>> I think this is the wrong concept, as it tries to use name-scoping to capture
>> different provenance accounts about the same entity. I think that an entity id
>> should refer to the same Entity wherever it occurs. What may vary between
>> accounts is the claims that are made about that entity. Without this, I see no
>> basis for comparing accounts.
>> For PROV-DM, I imagine one one might say that the account+local id together
>> form the common identifier (ala compound key), but then I think some
>> additional mechanism would then be needed to link names from different accounts.
>> When the names used are URIs, then I think that the notion of scoping is
>> entirely wrong. URIs are, by design, a *global* namespace, and it creates
>> confusion (or worse) of one allows a URI to denote different things.
>> Personally, I would not prescribe the form of names used by the DM; the use of
>> URIs is a syntactic matter, and as such it could be introduced for ASN.
>> I see the DM as an "abstract syntax" in the sense proposed by John McCarthy,
>> where the terms and productions have the form of logical predicates, and in
>> particular a "name" is distinguished simply as a predicate "Name(id)" which is
>> True iff "id" is a name. This avoids any need to prescribe the actual form of
>> referenced by the DM.
Received on Sunday, 25 March 2012 10:25:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:10 UTC