- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 14:30:51 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Dear all, In addition to the changes made on Friday, I have made the following changes, avoiding the sentence "bundles are self-contained". http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/029c773b81a3 I am closing this issue pending review. Feedback away of the F2F meeting appreciated. Regards, Luc On 11/02/2012 04:45 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi all, > > I have committed some changes related to the scoping of > prefix-namespace declarations. > > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/9a123c41e1b5 > > Feedback is welcome! > Regards, > Luc > > On 01/11/2012 17:02, James Cheney wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Just to clarify: There is some mention in the discussion of issue-496 >> that the "excluding" scoping rule (where bundles must be >> self-contained) helps simplify prov-constraints. I think they are >> orthogonal issues, since prov-constraints implicitly assumes that >> co-reference has been resolved before we start checking validity and >> so on. >> >> I think it is useful to illustrate the effect of the resolution today >> on a simple example: >> >> document >> prefix ex http://www.example.com >> bundle ex:b1 >> entity(ex:e1) >> endBundle >> bundle ex:b2 >> prefix ex http://www.example2.com >> entity(ex:e1) >> endBundle >> endDocument >> >> With the excluding semantics, every bundle has to be self-contained, >> and so the example above is *illegal* in prov-n with "excluding" >> scoping, because b1 doesn't (re)declare namespace ex. >> >> After today's resolution, the above document is *legal*, provided we >> are clear that redeclarations at inner scopes are allowed and take >> precedence over any prior declarations. >> >> However, either way it is irrelevant to prov-constraints, which >> doesn't say anything about namespaces; implementations need to expand >> out prefixes in the usual way first. The above document (if legal) >> is really shorthand for >> >> document >> bundle http://www.example.com/#b1 >> entity(http://www.example.com/#e1) >> endBundle >> bundle http://www.example.com/#b2 >> entity(http://www.example2.com/e1) >> endBundle >> endDocument >> >> thus, avoiding the potential name clash between the two ex:e1's. >> >> Perhaps this should be clarified in prov-n, prov-constraints, or both. >> >> --James >> >> On Nov 1, 2012, at 4:42 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker >> wrote: >> >>> PROV-ISSUE-589: scope of prefixes in prov-n documents [prov-n] >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/589 >>> >>> Raised by: Luc Moreau >>> On product: prov-n >>> >>> >>> >>> Change the scope of document prefixes in prov-n to include inner >>> bundles (unless they are re-declared). >>> >>> This is a follow-up of ISSUE-496 >>> >>> See http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-11-01#resolution_5 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > -- 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 Tuesday, 6 November 2012 14:31:23 UTC