- From: Curt Tilmes <Curt.Tilmes@nasa.gov>
- Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 06:53:17 -0500
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
It does not. I have not used jaxb, and I don't understand how order should affect a well-crafted parser. If it sees a "prov:location" then a "prov:type", why would it deal with it any differently from seeing first the "prov:type" then the "prov:location". Why would it not parse them each identically? I guess as jaxb builds its model from the schema, it sees the choice as a single method and doesn't understand the "multiple" choice aspect of it. If, in order to work around the quirks of this particular tool, we change from a choice to a sequence, requiring, e.g. all "prov:type"s to precede "prov:location"s, it doesn't reduce expressivity in that we can still express every concept, but there would be definitely be fewer valid expressions for a given concept (and more ways to do it wrong). With things open the way they are now, I can look at PROV-N and turn it into PROV-XML almost mechanically (the order in XML can always be exactly as it is in PROV-N, which doesn't constrain the order). With a more tightly constrained order in XML, I have to consult the docs for each expression and re-arrange things 'just right' to produce something valid. That said, these intricacies will get eventually get buried inside XML tools/parsers/producers, so ultimately I'm ok with it either way. I'll defer to your real world experience with this -- we need to design this so the tools are able to cope with it. Any other opinions one way or the other? Curt On 2/5/13 1:37 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi Curt, > > Does the schema now impose an order on prov "attributes"? > > Without order, I have failed to define an object mapping (with jaxb) that is useful from an OO perspective. Likewise, i have not managed to define a meaningful ORM mapping. Now, this is my experience with these tools, maybe somebody has succeeded. > > In summary, The problem I encountered is as follows. If there is a choice (instead of sequence) between say, prov:type, prov:location, prov:label, all these elements are mapped to a single java method or a single sql column. This results in non natural code or SQL queries. > > Because of this, my preference is to keep these in a sequence. It does not at all reduce expressivity, I think. > > > Professor Luc Moreau > Electronics and Computer Science > University of Southampton > Southampton SO17 1BJ > United Kingdom > > On 5 Feb 2013, at 01:17, "Curt Tilmes" <Curt.Tilmes@nasa.gov> wrote: > >> Last week, we also briefly mentioned the PROV-XML element >> ordering issue, described here: >> >> https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/572 >> >> Are there strong opinions about changing anything (either >> arguments, or attributes or anything else from the way it >> is now? >> >> Tracker, this is ISSUE-572. >> >> Curt >> -- Curt Tilmes, Ph.D. U.S. Global Change Research Program 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 250 Washington, D.C. 20006, USA +1 202-419-3479 (office) +1 443-987-6228 (cell) globalchange.gov
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2013 11:53:41 UTC