- From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:23:17 -0700
- To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "pgroth@gmail.com" <pgroth@gmail.com>, Hook Hua <hook.hua@jpl.nasa.gov>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Feb 25, 2013, at 9:07 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote: >> The implication is that xsi:type can be used to specify the type of an element for validation purposes >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#xsi_type >> >> This is defined by XML Schema and is not something we are adding extra meaning to. > > So it does not also append prov:type 'ex:Workflow' to the PROV-DM > statements loaded from that PROV-XML? It could. I think that is a reasonable assertion to make, and one that we should add to the note. > >> What do you mean technically by "don't understand my schema"? > > I mean a PROV consumer who can see and load your schema, but has no > programmatic understanding of anything beyond PROV-XML. Let's say this > consumer is to output PROV-N. > > >> For the following xml snippet: >> >> <prov:plan prov:id="foo" xsi:type="ex:Workflow" /> >> >> If the schema that defines ex:Workflow is not known (namespace "ex" is not defined) the xml will not validate because the namespace "ex" is not defined. > > (..) > >> If the namespace/schema are known and ex:Workflow is an extension of prov:Plan than the xml will validate. > > I am less concerned now about the XML validation; as that's known > territory. What I wonder about is the semantics of using an XML > extension of a complex type and/or xsi:type. > > > So let's say we have: > > <prov:entity prov:id="foo" xsi:type="ex:Workflow" /> > > and in the schema the complex type ex:Workflow extends the prov:Plan > complex type. > > Let's say the PROV-XML consumer can fully load the schema and the XML > validates perfectly, and then saves the PROV statements as PROV-N. > > > Would you expect then to find in the PROV-N: > > entity(foo, prov:type='ex:Workflow') > > and more importantly the inferred: > > entity(foo, prov:type='prov:Plan') A good question and I think the PROV-N encoding should include the these statements. I can add text to reflect these type inferences to the note. --Stephan > > > ? > > > -- > Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team > School of Computer Science > The University of Manchester >
Received on Monday, 25 February 2013 16:23:51 UTC