- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 17:32:05 +0100
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Tim,
I think this would make sense.
I would put forward the following suggestion.
1. None of the mentioned subtypes should have reserved syntax in prov-n
2. All reserved subtypes should appear in the summary table
3. All reserved subtypes should appear in UML diagrams (marked with a
stereotype and/or color) to distinguish them from our toplevel classes.
Luc
On 05/23/2012 05:20 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> Luc,
>
> I thinking adding:
>
> prov:SoftwareAgent no no no
> prov:Organization no no no
> prov:Person no no no
>
> in non-bold would make sense, if one is inclined to add them.
>
>
> That leaves
> EmptyDictionary, which also seems reasonable (unbolded like the rest).
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>
>
> On May 23, 2012, at 12:03 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
>
>> Hi Tim:
>> Here it is:
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#prov-dm-types-and-relations
>> Luc
>>
>> On 05/23/2012 04:57 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
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 16:32:38 UTC