ISSUE-536: Notation Section 2.3

Notation Section 2.3

Raised by:
Paolo Missier
Opened on:
Is the use of "-" to indicate a missing term a standard convention? It seems unintuitive and potentially error-prone. NULL might be better if positional attributes are used (this issue is moot if named attributes are used; see issue 533 regarding "notation of attributes":

There seems to be ambiguity in the syntax when the first parameter is option. For example, if both "wasDerivedFrom(e2, e1, a)" and "wasDerivedFrom(d, e2, e1)" are valid expressions, how can they be differentiated?

Example 1: (e2, e1, a) is an acceptable form of (e2, e1, a, -, -) Example 2: (d, e2, e1) is an acceptable form of (d, e2, e1, -, -, -)

Without named attributes, it is not possible to unambiguously determine how to parse "wasDerivedFrom(1, 2, 3)". Is it in the form of Example 1 or Example 2?
Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
  1. Re: PROV-N responses (from on 2012-11-01)
  2. RE: PROV-N responses (from on 2012-10-31)
  3. PROV-N responses (from on 2012-10-27)
  4. prov-n proposed responses to comments (deadline Thursday 12noon GMT) (from on 2012-10-15)
  5. Re: PROV-ISSUE-536: Notation Section 2.3 [prov-n] (from on 2012-10-15)
  6. PROV-ISSUE-536: Notation Section 2.3 [prov-n] (from on 2012-09-10)

Related notes:

No additional notes.

Display change log ATOM feed

Chair, Staff Contact
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <>.
$Id: 536.html,v 1.1 2013-06-20 07:37:51 vivien Exp $