- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 13:59:46 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
For revision, hadOriginalSource, and wasQuotedFrom ( http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-dm-20120503/#term-Revision) I feel that we shouldn't introduce a special syntax in PROV-N, but we should just introduce types: prov:Revision, etc. This would be inline with the way all other subtypes are handled. So, the question is: should they all appear in UML diagram and table 4? Luc On 05/23/2012 01:49 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > PROV-ISSUE-383 (how-to-handle-subtypes): How to handle subtypes in PROV-DM [prov-dm] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/383 > > Raised by: Luc Moreau > On product: prov-dm > > > PROV-DM defines a variety of subtypes and handles them differently. > > Some have an explicit prov-n construct (I think for those, it's a legacy > of the past, when signatures were not uniform). > > Some are explicitly represented in UML diagrams, some are not. > Some are listed in table 4. > > PROV-N in UML in Table 4 > notation diag > > wasRevisionOf yes yes yes > > hadOriginalSource yes yes yes > > wasQuotedFrom yes yes yes > > prov:Plan no yes no > > prov:SoftwareAgent no no no > > prov:Organization no no no > > prov:Person no no no > > prov:Bundle no yes yes > > prov:Collection no yes yes > > prov:Dictionary no yes yes > > prov:EmptyDictionary no no no > > Suggestions on how to handle them systematically are welcome! > > Luc > > > > -- 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 Wednesday, 23 May 2012 15:53:58 UTC