- From: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:18:47 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
PROV-ISSUE-580 (drop-syntactic-sugar-definitions): Suggestion to drop definitions in section 4.1 since they are not needed if the semantics is defined more abstractly [prov-dm-constraints] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/580 Raised by: James Cheney On product: prov-dm-constraints A sub-issue of ISSUE-576. >From Antoine Zimmermann's email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Oct/0004.html Definitions and inferences of 4.1 are not needed if the semantics is defined on the abstract syntax. The abstract syntax is not PROV-N and does not have "syntactic sugar" or "syntactic shortcuts". Meaning, relations in abstract syntax always contain all the arguments, optional or not, possibly with existential variables. The short forms only exist in the surface syntax. ... Section 4.1 This section defines equivalence of syntactic constructs that are purely a PROV-N issue. There is no reason to put this in the logic of PROV structures.
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 16:18:48 UTC