- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 09:52:37 -0500
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Luc, On Feb 12, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >>> >>> >>> The prov-o document has several examples with blank nodes. >>> Some of them are difficult >>> to express in prov-n/prov-xml. >>> >>> Consider: >>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/5495d990f17b/testcases/provo/prov-o-property-hadUsage-PASS.ttl >>> >>> The usage has no identifier we can use in the derivation. >> >> Any identifier will do; you may choose a new one for each bnode you find. >> >> >>> Should we keep examples of this kind in the specification or should we introduce an explicit >>> identifier for usage here? >> We are using blank nodes to help the reader focus on the structure of the PROV-O pattern. >> I think this is appropriate for the audience of PROV-O. >> >> Perhaps it's just a matter of knowing how to handle bnodes when mapping to other serializations? > > We don't specify that. So, we don't how express that example in prov-xml/prov-n. In XML, it'd be an element with no @id attribute (since, that's exactly what a blank node is). I haven't written any translators to XML or N, so I guess I don't understand the problem clearly enough. What is difficult about "filling something in" if it's not there? This is exactly the correct interpretation of a bnode. Regards, Tim
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2013 14:55:04 UTC