- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 14:17:22 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi, I think that we should align the terminology of prov-n to the one adopted in prov-constraints, and rename prov-n 'toplevel bundle' to 'prov document'. For the avoidance of doubt, this is not a change of design, it's terminology alignment. Luc On 10/08/12 16:40, James Cheney wrote: > I believe this issue can be handled independently of ISSUE-474. If the editors of PROV-N wish to change the term "toplevel bundle" and keywords "bundle" and "endBundle" to something else that matches this terminology, that would be fine with me, but I don't insist on it. > > My suggestion would be something like: > > "toplevel bundle" -> "PROV document" > opening "bundle" --> "provenance" or just "prov" > closing "endBundle" --> "endProvenance" or just "endProv" > > but again, if people like it the way it is I'm happy with closing. > > If we keep the existing terminology, we should probably change PROV-CONSTRAINTS to make clear that what it calls "PROV document" is the same as what PROV-N calls "toplevel bundle" (and perhaps suggest that we hope/expect it will align with "RDF dataset", but make this a non-normative remark. Or would that be too much of a red flag?) > > --James > > > On Aug 10, 2012, at 12:23 PM, Ivan Herman wrote: > >> Oops. For some reasons this was answered on Issue-474. For the sake of completeness and issue management, let me repeat my answer: >> >> That would lead to a possible confusion. The term 'dataset' is used in the SW world, namely in SPARQL. It *may* be the term adopted by RDF 1.1 for a collection of named graphs and, actually, it *may* be the right abstraction for Prov, too, but... we are not yet sure. And if we end up using the same term but with a different meaning then, well, hell is loose:-) >> >> B.t.w., if I use the RDF datasets as an analogy: that consists of (G, (n1,G1),....,(ni,Gi)), where (ni,Gi) is, to use the current terminology, a named graph (that is the term used in SPARQL) and G is the 'default graph'. As an analogy, what about 'default bundle' ? >> >> Ivan >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 10, 2012, at 09:57 , Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> >>> PROV-ISSUE-477 (rename toplevel-bundle): rename toplevel-bundle to dataset [prov-n] >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/477 >>> >>> Raised by: Luc Moreau >>> On product: prov-n >>> >>> >>> Following discussion on ISSUE-474, let us rename toplevel-bundle to dataset. >>> >>> Hence, what was written >>> >>> bundle >>> prefix ex <http://ex.com> >>> entity(ex:a) >>> //... >>> endBundle >>> >>> would become >>> >>> >>> dataset >>> prefix ex <http://ex.com> >>> entity(ex:a) >>> //... >>> endDataset >>> >>> >>> >> >> ---- >> 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 Monday, 3 September 2012 13:18:02 UTC