- From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:34:29 +0000
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- CC: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
Update just pushed. https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/prov-aq.html I've updated has_provenance, has_anchor and has_query_service, as these all appear as link relations. Unchanged as yet, but up for discussion are describesService provenanceUriTemplate that are used only in RDF service descriptions. #g -- On 27/02/2013 10:26, Paul Groth wrote: > ok will do. > > @Graham will you update the paq? > > Thanks > Paul > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>wrote: > >> yes Paul, no problem, I wouldn't wait till the call, I would tell all >> editors now. >> >> Luc >> >> >> On 02/27/2013 10:16 AM, Paul Groth wrote: >> >> I have this as part of the agenda item on the call tomorrow. >> >> I'd like to decide by then. >> >> @Luc are you ok with the underscore solution? >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >> >>> Very honestly: I do not have strong opinion here, I can go either way. >>> But yes, we should decide soon. >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>> On Feb 27, 2013, at 11:02 , Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote: >>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> 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 >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 12:35:06 UTC