- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:02:31 +0000
- To: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, pgroth@gmail.com, Hook Hua <hook.hua@jpl.nasa.gov>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote: > I have updated the editors draft of the note with a section on type > conventions. > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/xml/prov-xml.html#type-conventions > Is this issue ready to be closed? (I guess it's up to Paul to say if we should close the issue) For someone consuming PROV-XML I guess it would be a bit bothersome that there are three almost equivalent mechanism, but in my opinion at least this section gives a decent explanation to those mechanisms. Is the implication from the xsi:type support that I can make an extension schema with a ex:Workflow complex type extending prov:Plan, and then use only xsi:type="ex:Workflow" (or equivalent custom element) in the XML? Would PROV-XML consumers who don't understand my schema (but have access to it through xsi declarations in the document) be expected to also understand those as prov:Plans? -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Monday, 25 February 2013 10:03:24 UTC