- From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 13:30:38 -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: <E7878EC1-D7A9-40AB-B288-062185C9AC26@rpi.edu>
I have committed change to prov-core.xsd to use ordered elements for prov attributes.
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/3f1e31b0df28
I have also updated a few prov-xml test files in eg-40 to conform with the new required ordering of elements
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/f95aa1566db7
--Stephan
On Feb 7, 2013, at 1:10 PM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote:
> Sounds good. I will commit the change.
>
> --Stephan
>
> On Feb 7, 2013, at 1:06 PM, Curt Tilmes <Curt.Tilmes@nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>> I was going to suggest the order from PROV-DM section 5.7.2 and table 8,
>> which appears to be alphabetical...
>>
>> Curt
>>
>> On 02/07/2013 01:39 PM, Stephan Zednik wrote:
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 Thursday, 7 February 2013 20:31:31 UTC