- From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 12:43:02 -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>
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