- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:32:23 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Thanks Graham, it's now closed. On 25/03/2012 10:14, Graham Klyne wrote: > 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 Monday, 26 March 2012 09:34:21 UTC