- From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 14:19:08 +0100
- To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
This issue has been addressed by editorial changes to PROV-N, adopted as suggested below. This decreases ambiguity so I'm closing the issue. --James On Apr 19, 2012, at 3:15 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > PROV-ISSUE-354 (all-or-nothing-for-optional-arguments): Adopt an all-or-nothing approach to optional positional arguments [prov-n] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/354 > > Raised by: James Cheney > On product: prov-n > > > >> However, the grammar may not be systematic enough (a comment that Paolo made). >> Also, for instance, it forces us to have t or - for time in generation. > > > Treating the "positional" optional arguments in the all-or-nothing way (which wasDerivedFrom and others already do) would fix this, while allowing short forms of wasGeneratedBy and friends. Right now, they are treated in an "all-or-all" way that seems incompatible with many examples > > > > > > > -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 13:19:54 UTC