- From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 11:39:41 -0700
- To: Curt Tilmes <Curt.Tilmes@nasa.gov>
- Cc: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <190AB7FA-7CD9-4601-9333-B50D6651CDE0@rpi.edu>
How about alphabetical?
--Stephan
On Feb 7, 2013, at 9:57 AM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote:
> Now I think it is time to determine what ordering we want to have. Should we use alphabetic ordering? order by expectations of usage? I don't have a preference except that we are consistent.
>
> --Stephan
>
>
> On Feb 7, 2013, at 4:12 AM, Curt Tilmes <Curt.Tilmes@nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>> Agreed. If we just explain clearly in the doc what the order is, anyone implementing can do it that way.
>> Most people will be using other tools to output the XML so the tool will hide the need for order from them
>> anyway.
>>
>> Curt
>>
>> On 2/7/13 4:40 AM, Stephan Zednik wrote:
>>> Ok. I am on-board with updating the schema to enforce element ordering on prov attributes. I like the idea of using jax bindings + simplify plugin but I think that is too complex a solution.
>>>
>>> --Stephan
>>>
>>> On Feb 7, 2013, at 1:47 AM, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Stephan,
>>>>
>>>> Response interleaved.
>>>>
>>>> On 07/02/2013 04:08, Stephan Zednik wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 6, 2013, at 4:58 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Stephan and Curt,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is good to keep choice in documentElement. You both introduced it. Let's not remove it.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I agree, but the choice in documentElement will lead to the same problem with JAXB that a choice in attributes does.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think the situation is the same.
>>>> A bundle/document has a containment relationship with respect to documentElements, whereas prov attributes, we want them
>>>> to appear as instance variables (with associated setters and getters). I am therefore fine, with all documentElments being
>>>> amalgamated in a single list.
>>>>> Both Document and Bundle classes generated by JAXB's xjc use a single list for all available elements in a documentElement.
>>>>>
>>>>> The generated code looks like the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> protected List<JAXBElement<?>> entityOrActivityOrWasGeneratedBy;
>>>>>
>>>>> /**
>>>>> * Gets the value of the entityOrActivityOrWasGeneratedBy property.
>>>>> *
>>>>> * <p>
>>>>> * This accessor method returns a reference to the live list,
>>>>> * not a snapshot. Therefore any modification you make to the
>>>>> * returned list will be present inside the JAXB object.
>>>>> * This is why there is not a <CODE>set</CODE> method for the entityOrActivityOrWasGeneratedBy property.
>>>>> *
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We can easily improve on this, as I did in the provtoolbox:
>>>> See http://openprovenance.org/java/site/prov/apidocs/org/openprovenance/prov/xml/Document.html#getEntityOrActivityOrWasGeneratedBy()
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> * <p>
>>>>> * For example, to add a new item, do as follows:
>>>>> * <pre>
>>>>> * getEntityOrActivityOrWasGeneratedBy().add(newItem);
>>>>> * </pre>
>>>>> *
>>>>> *
>>>>> * <p>
>>>>> * Objects of the following type(s) are allowed in the list
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link Association }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link EmptyCollection }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link Specialization }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link Removal }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link Dictionary }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link Organization }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link EmptyDictionary }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link Plan }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link Start }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link Agent }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link Collection }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link Mention }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link Generation }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link SoftwareAgent }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link Derivation }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link KeyValuePair }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link Object }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link Communication }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link Attribution }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link Delegation }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link Entity }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link Influence }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link Usage }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link Alternate }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link Membership }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link Bundle }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link End }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link Insertion }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link Activity }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link Invalidation }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link Person }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link Revision }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link Quotation }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link PrimarySource }{@code >}
>>>>> * {@link JAXBElement }{@code <}{@link DictionaryMembership }{@code >}
>>>>> *
>>>>> *
>>>>> */
>>>>> public List<JAXBElement<?>> getEntityOrActivityOrWasGeneratedBy() {
>>>>> if (entityOrActivityOrWasGeneratedBy == null) {
>>>>> entityOrActivityOrWasGeneratedBy = new ArrayList<JAXBElement<?>>();
>>>>> }
>>>>> return this.entityOrActivityOrWasGeneratedBy;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> My concern about choice in prov attributes is that they lead, by default, to non natural object mapping with jaxb. I believe jaxb matters because jaxb is a community standard reaching well beyond the java community.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I agree. Would having a section in the FAQ which analyzes the problem in the context of a specific ORM technology and provides possible solutions (hints and/or alternate schemas) for that technology be satisfiable?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> alternate schemas is challenging, since you want any xml compatible with prov-xml to be readable by a jaxb-friendly schema.
>>>>> Also, looking at the JAXB generated class I think the manner in which the schema defines and uses prov:ref will result in a mapping that is not natural.
>>>>>
>>>>> The following components from the schema
>>>>>
>>>>> <xs:complexType name="Generation">
>>>>> <xs:sequence>
>>>>> <xs:element name="entity" type="prov:IDRef"/>
>>>>> <xs:element name="activity" type="prov:IDRef" minOccurs="0"/>
>>>>> <xs:element name="time" type="xs:dateTime" minOccurs="0"/>
>>>>> <xs:choice minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
>>>>> <xs:element ref="prov:location"/>
>>>>> <xs:element ref="prov:role"/>
>>>>> <xs:element ref="prov:label"/>
>>>>> <xs:element ref="prov:type"/>
>>>>> <xs:any namespace="##other"/>
>>>>> </xs:choice>
>>>>> </xs:sequence>
>>>>> <xs:attribute ref="prov:id"/>
>>>>> </xs:complexType>
>>>>>
>>>>> <!-- note, this is not xs:IDREF -->
>>>>> <xs:complexType name="IDRef">
>>>>> <xs:attribute ref="prov:ref" use="required" />
>>>>> </xs:complexType>
>>>>>
>>>>> result in class members with type IDRef
>>>>>
>>>>> protected IDRef entity;
>>>>> protected IDRef activity;
>>>>>
>>>>> Whose class is defined like so:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here, provtoolbox maps as follows:
>>>>
>>>> http://openprovenance.org/java/site/prov/apidocs/org/openprovenance/prov/xml/Entity.html#getId()
>>>>
>>>> public QName getId()
>>>>
>>>> So, i think this works ok.
>>>>
>>>> Luc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> @XmlAccessorType(XmlAccessType.FIELD)
>>>>> @XmlType(name = "IDRef")
>>>>> public class IDRef {
>>>>>
>>>>> @XmlAttribute(name = "ref", namespace = MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "www.w3.org" claiming to be "http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#", required = true)
>>>>> protected QName ref;
>>>>>
>>>>> /**
>>>>> * Gets the value of the ref property.
>>>>> *
>>>>> * @return
>>>>> * possible object is
>>>>> * {@link QName }
>>>>> *
>>>>> */
>>>>> public QName getRef() {
>>>>> return ref;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> /**
>>>>> * Sets the value of the ref property.
>>>>> *
>>>>> * @param value
>>>>> * allowed object is
>>>>> * {@link QName }
>>>>> *
>>>>> */
>>>>> public void setRef(QName value) {
>>>>> this.ref = value;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> I think our modeling of prov:ref will likewise cause confusion among ORM generated classes.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Stephan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, I am not expert in jaxb. There may well be standard jaxb annotations that allow us To support a natural object mapping with an xsd choice. If so, we should go for xsd:choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Curt's suggestion of a plugin (-simple) is a good, as long as plugin is maintained, which with my jaxb experience, is not encouraging, especially.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the absence of standard jaxb annotations that lead to natural jaxb mappings, my preference is to be conservative and go for ordered prov attributes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Professor Luc Moreau
>>>>>> Electronics and Computer Science
>>>>>> University of Southampton
>>>>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ
>>>>>> United Kingdom
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6 Feb 2013, at 20:08, "Stephan Zednik" <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After having played around with JAB and gaining a better understanding of the problem I am more amenable to the idea of requiring element ordering for properties.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am still not sold on the idea of element ordering in documentElements and without that the generated class methods for Bundle will be a 'bag of hurt'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An alternate idea is a to have a section in the FAQ dedicated to providing ORM implementation-specific tips on how to generate 'nice' mappings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The plugin Curt has mentioned could be mentioned in a FAQ entry and we could provide an example of how to use external hints to JAXB. The FAQ could also contain links to a modified schema that uses ordered elements and is only intended to be used as a source for ORM mappings, but not as a schema to validate against.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think I like the second option best as it allows us to respond to ORM-mapping issues after the WG activity has completed and is a natural way to talk about implementation specific ORM issues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --Stephan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 5, 2013, at 11:56 AM, Curt Tilmes <Curt.Tilmes@nasa.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Luc,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I haven't tested this yet, but is it possible that the jaxb
>>>>>>>> "Simplify" plugin could address this problem with jaxb?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://confluence.highsource.org/display/J2B/Simplify+Plugin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems (again, untested), that you could use it and specify
>>>>>>>> some application hints for jaxb ("simplify:as-element-property")
>>>>>>>> for the attributes that would instruct jaxb to model
>>>>>>>> each attribute family (type, location, label, etc.) with
>>>>>>>> its own list rather than bundling them together as it
>>>>>>>> does by default with choices.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Curt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 02/05/2013 01:37 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Curt Tilmes, Ph.D.
>> U.S. Global Change Research Program
>> 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 250
>> Washington, D.C. 20006, USA
>
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 18:40:35 UTC