W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > March 2013

Re: ISSUE-595: Prov-xml subtyping needs to be marked in the document

From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 12:43:02 -0700
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>
Message-Id: <ED37A0FA-7BE1-43F9-B09E-B62A65B2FEBD@rpi.edu>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
I have made a small edit to mention type inferences  when non PROV attribute type mechanisms are used to state the type in PROV-XML

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/c331e747c1e5

I have stated that type inferences are option "may" since I did not want to add this inferences as a requirement.

I did state that type inferences help with interoperability with non-PROV-XML serializations of PROV.

Stian, is this section sufficient? 

Is ISSUE-595 ready to be closed?

--Stephan

On Feb 25, 2013, at 9:23 AM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote:

> 
> 
> 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, 4 March 2013 19:43:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:32 UTC