- From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:21:15 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
I think it's unfortunate that we have ended up with two distinct names for so many of the concepts (e.g. Generation / wasGeneratedBy). That alone creates mental clutter for a reader. If we are to have this multiplicity of names, then I think it's not unreasonable to put them in the diagram - I'd probably parenthesize the concept (e.g. "WasGeneratedBy (Generation)"). [later] OTOH, I also like Paul's point about keeping the diagram super-simple. Count me conflicted. #g -- On 25/09/2012 15:04, Luc Moreau wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am seeking the group's view on this issue. > > Figure 1 http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#prov-core-structures uses labels > "WasGeneratedBy, ... > for edges (corresponding to prov:wasGeneratedBy in prov-o or wasGeneratedBy in > prov-n). > > Table 2 http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#overview-types-and-relations maps concepts > Generation, ... > to names. > > The reviewer suggest that concepts names are put next to relation names in > Figure 1. > > I fear this may clutter the diagram. However, if the group is happy with this, I > will implement it. > > Can you express your views? > > Regards, > Luc > > On 10/09/2012 09:30, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> PROV-ISSUE-497: prov-dm: Data Model Figure 1 [prov-dm] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/497 >> >> Raised by: Luc Moreau >> On product: prov-dm >> >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/LC_Feedback#Data_Model_Figure_1 >> >> ISSUE-463 >> >> Since the following sections are organized by "PROV concept" (e.g., >> Generation), it would help the reader if those terms were included in the >> relationship labels along with the names (e.g., wasGeneratedBy). >> >> >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 15:27:38 UTC