Re: hasProvenance property name [MAYBE URGENT]

Have we come to a conclusion on this?

We need to decide to let people go through the staging process.

I'm in favor of prov:has_provenance . As this is a purely syntactic change
from what we already had.

cheers
Paul




On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote:

> I would favour prov:has_provenance over prov:hasprovenance or
> prov:provenance.
>
> I have a concern that prov:provenance reads more like a class name than a
> property/relation.  Also, can we be sure that, in future, someone won't
> want to
> define prov:Provenance as a class of some kind?  (Because of the case
> insensitive matching defined by RFC5988, and arguably good practice
> generally,
> the capitalized form should be off-limits for future use if
> prov:provenance is
> selected.
>
> #g
> --
>
>
> On 26/02/2013 10:51, Paul Groth wrote:
> > That seems to be the best way then.
> >
> > so prov:hasprovenance or prov:has_provenance
> >
> > ?
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Do you mean the element that is generated into the header of the HTML?
> If
> >> that is the only place it appears, I think we can change that for the
> >> published PR document before handing it over to the webmaster.
> >>
> >> Ivan
> >>
> >> On Feb 26, 2013, at 10:42 , Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> It's in the <link> element we added last week.
> >>>
> >>> On 26/02/2013 09:40, Ivan Herman wrote:
> >>>> Graham,
> >>>>
> >>>> I am not sure I understand something.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have looked at the prov-o document, and that document does not
> >> mention the prov:hasProvenance term. Ie, where does this term appear in
> any
> >> of the four Rec-track documents? More importantly, does it appear, if it
> >> does, in a normative section?
> >>>>
> >>>> Ivan
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Feb 26, 2013, at 10:30 , Graham Klyne<GK@ninebynine.org>  wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [I'm keeping this off-list for now, because if Ivan says there's
> >> nothing we can do at this juncture, I see little point in opening the
> issue
> >> for wider discussion.  I am cc'ing www-archive so there's a record of
> our
> >> discussion.]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is a bit embarrassing, given an email I wrote just a couple of
> >> days ago.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm working through comments on PROV-AQ, and Stian has raised the
> >> following:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [[
> >>>>> 32) According to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-4.2
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When extension relation types are compared, they MUST be compared as
> >>>>>    strings (after converting to URIs if serialised in a different
> >>>>>    format, such as a Curie [W3C.CR-curie-20090116]) in a case-
> >>>>>    insensitive fashion, character-by-character.  Because of this,
> all-
> >>>>>    lowercase URIs SHOULD be used for extension relations.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Should we not have relation URIs that are all lowercase to avoid
> >> problems?  ie.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Link:<http://acme.example.org/provenance/super-widget>;
> >>>>>            rel="http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hasprovenance"
> >>>>> ]]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I had completely missed this in RFC5988, and had forgotten about
> >> Stian's comment when I replied a couple of days ago.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If we hadn't just been through the incorporation of provenance links
> >> into the published documents, I'd suggest changing "hasProvenance" to
> >> "has_provenance" to avoid the problems noted.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, what now?  I see a few options:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (a) keep the same name, and simply note that, when used as a link
> >> relation, prov:hasProvenance is compared case-insensitively.
> >>>>> (b) if it's not too late, change the property name
> >>>>> (c) define a second property that is all lowercase, and declared
> >> equivalent to the first.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As far as I can tell, the main consequence of going with option (a)
> is
> >> that we MUST NOT in future define a different property/relation
> >> prov:hasprovenance, as under some circumstances covered by RFC5988, this
> >> would be indistinguishable from prov:hasProvenance.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Given where we now are, my inclination would be to stay with things
> as
> >> they are, but add a note reserving the all lower-case versions of
> >> prov:hasProvenance, etc., from future use because of the case
> insensitivity
> >> comparison requirement.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> #g
> >>>>> --
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ----
> >>>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> >>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> >>>> mobile: +31-641044153
> >>>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Professor Luc Moreau
> >>> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
> >>> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
> >>> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> >>> United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----
> >> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> >> mobile: +31-641044153
> >> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>



-- 
--
Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
Assistant Professor
- Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group |
  Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
- The Network Institute
VU University Amsterdam