ISSUE-537: Notation Section 2.4

Notation Section 2.4

Raised by:
Paolo Missier
Opened on:
The syntax for providing statement identifiers is confusing. When instantiated, wasDerivedFrom(e2, e1) is visually idential to wasDerivedFrom(d, e2), the latter being an invalid expression. If the first parameter of an expression is optional, it would be more clear to use a distinct delimiter between the identifier and the subsequent attributes (just as square brackets are used to deliniate optional attributes). That said, named attributes would be optimal.
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. Re: PROV-ISSUE-537: Notation Section 2.4 [prov-n] (from on 2012-10-15)
  7. PROV-ISSUE-537: Notation Section 2.4 [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: 537.html,v 1.1 2013-06-20 07:37:51 vivien Exp $