- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 14:28:26 -0400
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
Tracker, this was for ISSUE-363 Thanks, Tim On May 17, 2012, at 2:06 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote: > After weeks of discussion on phone and email, > > 1) > prov:value has been renamed to prov:pairValue > prov:key has been renamed to prov:pairKey > > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/215238f50bd5 > > > 2) > prov:value was reintroduced as DM's "value" (and rdf:value) > > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/b5caabaf5a5b > > Regards, > Tim > > > On May 15, 2012, at 11:43 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > >> >> >> On 05/15/2012 04:35 PM, Stephan Zednik wrote: >>> On May 15, 2012, at 9:33 AM, Timothy Lebo wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Stephan and WG, >>>> >>>> Given Luc's response about Dictionaries providing structure to Entities, can we go with pairKey and pairValue? >>>> >>> I think this is the best solution forward. >>> >> >> +1 >> >> Luc >> >>> --Stephan >>> >>> >>>> Any more concerns? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>> I think this goes back to my preference for prov:KeyEntityPair over prov:KeyValuePair. >>>>> >>>>> Why can only entities be the value in a KeyValuePair? >>>>> >>>>> --Stephan >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> Professor Luc Moreau >> Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 >> University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 >> Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk >> United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm >> >> >> >
Received on Monday, 21 May 2012 18:30:27 UTC