- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 11:16:06 -0400
- To: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
Stephan, Luc, and wg, On May 15, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Stephan Zednik wrote: > > On May 15, 2012, at 7:13 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > >> Hi Tim, >> >> On 05/15/2012 01:55 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote: >>> prov-wg, >>> >>> When modeling Dictionaries, PROV-O had a straightforward way to model KeyValuePairs: >>> >>> [ >>> a prov:KeyValuePair; >>> prov:key "goalie"; >>> prov:value :joe_the_tank; >>> ] >>> >> >> FYI, prov-dm talks about key-entity-set (key-entity pairs), since the term value means >> something else in prov-dm. >> I appreciated that prov:entity is already used in prov-o. >> >>> Then, DM introduced the reserved property "value" to do things like: >>> >>> entity(ex:in, [prov:value="abcd"]) >>> entity(ex:out, [prov:value=4]) >>> activity(ex:len, [prov:type="string-length"]) >>> used(ex:len,ex:in) >>> wasGeneratedBy(ex:out,ex:len) >>> wasDerivedFrom(ex:out,ex:in) >>> >>> DM's "value" property is exactly how rdf:value has been used in the past decade: >>> >>> :parameter_1 >>> a prov:Entity; >>> rdf:value 1024; >>> . >>> >>> but we wanted to reestablish prov:value because rdf:value's definition was "a bit" cloudy. >>> So, we end up with: >>> >>> >>> :parameter_1 >>> a prov:Entity; >>> prov:value 1024; >>> . >>> >>> >>> Unfortunately, the KeyValuePair's value collides with the DM's new value (rdf:value). >>> >>> So, we could: >>> >>> 1) relax prov:value's domain from KeyValuePair to Entity >>> >>> This would allow us to use prov:value in both KeyValuePairs as well as arbitrary "number entities". > > -1 > > This also does not provide the functionality the DM wants with prov:value (associating a literal value with the entity) and conflates prov:value to have two very different purposes. > >>> >>> >>> 2) Rename DM's "value" to "chars", inspired by cnt:chars from >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/Content-in-RDF10/#ContentAsTextClass > > -1 > > I prefer "content" to "chars", but would prefer even more to use prov:value to be consistent with the DM. I was proposing to have DM to change "value" to "content" at http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-dm-20120503/#term-attribute-value > >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> The names don't need to be exactly the same in prov-o/prov-dm. >> Why can't you prov:pairValue or prov:pairEntity, instead of prov:value in pairs? > > +1 for prov:pairEntity > > --Stephan Leaning towards Luc and Stephan, what about [ a prov:KeyValuePair; prov:pairKey "goalie"; prov:pairValue :joe_the_tank; ] I think the property should be named by the role, not its range - otherwise we'd have pairString which is odd. -Tim
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 15:16:56 UTC