W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > October 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-496: ivan's feedback on prov-n LC [prov-n]

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 23:37:08 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|a4dc9fee89f1cae699673b844edd74bao9FNbH08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|507DE194.2090604@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Ivan

Response below.

On 16/10/12 15:49, Ivan Herman wrote:
> Luc,
>
> I am happy with the other changes, but I still have question on the namespace issue. See below
>
>
> On Oct 16, 2012, at 07:40 , Luc Moreau wrote:
> [skip]
>>> - 3.4.7, Namespace declaration:
>>>
>>>     - minor buglet: in the bulleted item either both lines should begin with capital 'T' or none of the two
>>>     - I do not understand this sentence:
>>> 	"the scope of a namespace declaration directly occurring in a toplevel
>>>           bundle is the toplevel bundle itself, except and namedBundle it may contain".
>>>      I presume what it wants to say is that a namespace declaration in a named bundle has priority over the namespace declaration in the top level bundle and somehow the editing went wrong…
>> I have fixed the typo and edited the scoping rule. Hopefully, this clarifies this issue.
>>
> first of all, exclunding -> excluding

Fixed.
>
> But just to be clear about the intention. The way I understand the current sentence:
>
> [[[
> The scope of a namespace declaration directly occurring in a document is the document itself, exclunding the bundles it may contain
> ]]]
>
> is that, in case of
>
> document
>    prefix a <http:...>
>    ...
>    bundle abcde
>      ... a:something ...
>    endBundle
> endDocument
>
> the usage of 'a:something' is illegal. I am a bit surprised by this definition; usually (eg, in the trig-in-preparation) the prefix declarations given on the top are valid for the whole document, but you may have had good reasons for this restrictions that was discussed before I joined the group. Ie, I will not object to that, but just wanted to be sure that we do have the same understanding.
Your interpretation is correct.

There was a very *strong* push back by several WG members against any 
notion of scope related to bundles.  So, we adopted
this solution that makes bundles in prov-n totally self-contained.
The downside is that we can't inherit a prefix from a document, instead 
we have to replicate the prefix declaration.
The good thing is that bundles are totally independent, and this fact is 
exploited in prov-constraints.

Luc.


> Ivan
>
>
>
>
>> Regards,
>> Luc
>>
>>> Ivan
>>>
>>>
>>> ----
>>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>>> mobile: +31-641044153
>>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> -- 
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
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, 16 October 2012 22:37:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:20 UTC