- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 11:57:59 -0400
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Luc, On May 23, 2012, at 8:59 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > > > 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? Which table 4? (URL, please?) Thanks, Tim > > 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 15:58:34 UTC