- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:14:30 +0100
- 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. #g -- > > 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