ISSUE-580: Suggestion to drop definitions in section 4.1 since they are not needed if the semantics is defined more abstractly

drop-syntactic-sugar-definitions

Suggestion to drop definitions in section 4.1 since they are not needed if the semantics is defined more abstractly

State:

CLOSED

Product:

prov-dm-constraints

Raised by:

James Cheney

Opened on:

2012-10-25

Description:

A sub-issue of ISSUE-576.

From Antoine Zimmermann's email:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Oct/0004.html

Definitions and inferences of 4.1 are not needed if the semantics is defined on the abstract syntax. The abstract syntax is not PROV-N and does not have "syntactic sugar" or "syntactic shortcuts". Meaning, relations in abstract syntax always contain all the arguments, optional or not, possibly with existential variables. The short forms only exist in the surface syntax.

...

Section 4.1

This section defines equivalence of syntactic constructs that are purely a PROV-N issue. There is no reason to put this in the logic of PROV structures.

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Re: PROV-WG response to comments on constraints (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2012-11-06)
2. Re: PROV-WG response to comments on constraints (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2012-11-01)
3. Re: PROV-WG response to comments on constraints (from antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr on 2012-11-01)
4. PROV-WG response to comments on constraints (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2012-11-01)
5. Re: Reminder: Review of responses to PROV-CONSTRAINTS public comments (from l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-11-01)
6. Re: Reminder: Review of responses to PROV-CONSTRAINTS public comments (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2012-11-01)
7. Re: Reminder: Review of responses to PROV-CONSTRAINTS public comments (from l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-11-01)
8. Re: Reminder: Review of responses to PROV-CONSTRAINTS public comments (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2012-11-01)
9. Re: Reminder: Review of responses to PROV-CONSTRAINTS public comments (from p.t.groth@vu.nl on 2012-11-01)
10. Re: Reminder: Review of responses to PROV-CONSTRAINTS public comments (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2012-10-31)
11. Re: Reminder: Review of responses to PROV-CONSTRAINTS public comments (from l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-10-31)
12. Reminder: Review of responses to PROV-CONSTRAINTS public comments (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2012-10-31)
13. Review of PROV-CONSTRAINTS issues (ISSUE-576, ISSUE-580, ISSUE-577, ISSUE-578, ISSUE-581) (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2012-10-29)
14. PROV-ISSUE-580 (drop-syntactic-sugar-definitions): Suggestion to drop definitions in section 4.1 since they are not needed if the semantics is defined more abstractly [prov-dm-constraints] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-10-25)

Related notes:

No additional notes.

Display change log