- From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:30:45 -0700
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: pgroth@gmail.com, Hook Hua <hook.hua@jpl.nasa.gov>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <0A513FE9-FAA8-4EED-A5AB-E3F524C878FD@rpi.edu>
Hi Luc, I will update the Type section of the Note with a discussion on subtyping. On Jan 31, 2013, at 8:26 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > Hi Stephan, > > I think I would like to see some explanation in the html document on how we express subtyping. > A few questions, to illustrate the guidance I am looking for. > > > - Is it still legal to write > > <entity prov:id="foo"><prov:type xsi:type="xsd:QName">prov:Plan</prov:type></entity> Yes > > - Is it legal to write: > > <entity prov:id="foo" xsi:type="prov:Plan"></entity> This is a good question. I will look into it. it validates. > > - Are they both equivalent to > > <plan prov:id="foo"></plan> Yes. > > > - prov:type is used for "multiple inheritance" > > <agent prov:id="bar"> > <prov:type xsi:type="xsd:QName">prov:Person</prov:type> > <prov:type xsi:type="xsd:QName">foaf:Person</prov:type> > <prov:type xsi:type="xsd:QName">ex:Employee</prov:type> > </agent> > > - are the following equivalent? > <agent prov:id="legalperson01"> > <prov:type xsi:type="xsd:QName">prov:Person</prov:type> > <prov:type xsi:type="xsd:QName">prov:Organization</prov:type> > </agent> > > <person prov:id="legalperson01"> > <prov:type xsi:type="xsd:QName">prov:Organization</prov:type> > </person> > > <organization prov:id="legalperson01"> > <prov:type xsi:type="xsd:QName">prov:Person</prov:type> > </organization> Yes. > > - when there are multiple ways of expressing the same assertion, is there a preferred way? I don't believe an official preference has been discussed by the PROV-XML group or general WG. I think my preference would be that the type used be as specific whenever possible (e.g. use <prov:person> instead of <prov:agent> if it's a person) For multityping I don't have a preference yet. could suggest using multiple declarations with the same id to multi-type (assuming no id uniqueness restriction). This leaves a PROV-XML specific parser to interpret these two records as describing the same agent. <person prov:id="legalperson01"/> <organization prov:id="legalperson01"/> In this case prov:type would generally be used to specify a type that does not have a corresponding complexType in a relevant schema. --Stephan > > Thanks, > Luc > > On 01/31/2013 12:56 PM, Paul Groth wrote: >> For me it does. >> >> Thanks >> Paul >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote: >> Paul, Luc >> >> Do the updates to the schema and the Note documentation resolve this issue? >> >> Thanks, >> --Stephan >> >> On Jan 14, 2013, at 6:41 PM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote: >> >> > I have committed changes to the editors draft of the PROV-XML Note to reflect the changes to the schema. >> > >> > changeset: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/46e10eeaa3ef >> > >> > editors draft: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/46e10eeaa3ef/xml/prov-xml.html >> > >> > --Stephan >> > >> > On Jan 14, 2013, at 2:55 PM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote: >> > >> >> I have updated the PROV schema with new elements and complex types that reflect PROV-defined specializations of entity (bundle, collection, empty collection, plan), agent (person, organization, software agent) and derivation (quotation, revision, primary source). >> >> >> >> You can now define a prov:Person with the following XML: >> >> >> >> <prov:person prov:id="ex:Paolo" /> >> >> >> >> The old manner of defining a prov:Person (and all other types affected by this update) is still valid. >> >> >> >> <prov:agent prov:id="ex:Paolo"> >> >> <prov:type xsi:type="xsd:QName">prov:Person</prov:type> >> >> </prov:agent> >> >> >> >> Similar updates have been made for bundle, collection, empty collection , plan, organization, software agent, quotation, revision, and primary source. >> >> >> >> In the case of quotation, revision, and primary source the XML elements have been named to align with PROV-O. >> >> >> >> <xs:element name="wasRevisionOf" type="prov:Revision"/> >> >> <xs:element name="wasQuotedFrom" type="prov:Quotation"/> >> >> <xs:element name="hadPrimarySource" type="prov:PrimarySource"/> >> >> >> >> Change-set to PROV-XML schema >> >> >> >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/fb3e3ef40222 >> >> >> >> Change-set to PROV-XML example files >> >> >> >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/33a576fb0b32 >> >> >> >> The editors draft of the PROV-XML note has not yet been updated, but I intend to have it updated before this week's telecon. >> >> >> >> --Stephan >> >> >> >> On Nov 21, 2012, at 5:00 PM, "Hua, Hook (388C)" <hook.hua@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi Stephan and Luc, >> >>> >> >>> If we end up supporting both ways (three if you count Luc's one-liner >> >>> attribute way), then it may leave some variability of validation in the >> >>> different approaches. >> >>> >> >>> For example, with the <prov:wasRevisionOf> approach, it can be explicitly >> >>> validated by code ingesting the XML traces since the type is expressed in >> >>> the XSD. >> >>> >> >>> But with the <prov:type xsi:type="xsd:QName">prov:Revision</prov:type> >> >>> approach, the type value is currently left open as an xs:anySimpleType. >> >>> >> >>> Since we are explicitly defining an <prov:wasRevisionOf>, should we then >> >>> define a matching set of restriction constraints on <prov:type> ? For >> >>> example, a simpleType restriction with enumerations that match the >> >>> explicit extensions: >> >>> >> >>> <xs:complexType name="Derivation"> >> >>> <xs:sequence> >> >>> <xs:element name="generatedEntity" type="prov:EntityRef"/> >> >>> <xs:element name="usedEntity" type="prov:EntityRef"/> >> >>> <xs:element name="activity" type="prov:ActivityRef" >> >>> minOccurs="0"/> >> >>> <xs:element name="generation" type="prov:GenerationRef" >> >>> minOccurs="0"/> >> >>> <xs:element name="usage" type="prov:UsageRef" >> >>> minOccurs="0"/> >> >>> <xs:choice minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"> >> >>> <xs:element ref="prov:label"/> >> >>> <xs:element ref="prov:type"> >> >>> <xs:simpleType> >> >>> <xs:restriction base="xs:anySimpleType"> >> >>> <xs:enumeration value="prov:Revision"></xs:enumeration> >> >>> </xs:restriction> >> >>> </xs:simpleType> >> >>> </xs:element> >> >>> <xs:any namespace="##other"/> >> >>> </xs:choice> >> >>> </xs:sequence> >> >>> <xs:attribute ref="prov:id"/> >> >>> </xs:complexType> >> >>> >> >>> <xs:element name="wasDerivedFrom" type="prov:Derivation"/> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> --Hook >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 11/19/12 10:33 PM, "Luc Moreau" <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Hi Stephan, >> >>>> >> >>>> I think I concur with your conclusion: it may end up making tooling >> >>>> complex. Plus, the third way of writing things: >> >>>> >> >>>> <proc:agent xsi:type="prov:Person" prov:id="ex:e"/> >> >>>> >> >>>> Professor Luc Moreau >> >>>> Electronics and Computer Science >> >>>> University of Southampton >> >>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ >> >>>> United Kingdom >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> <prov:wasDerivedFrom> >> >>>>>>> <prov:generatedEntity prov:ref="tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215"/> >> >>>>>>> <prov:usedEntity prov:ref="tr:WD-prov-dm-20111018"/> >> >>>>>>> <prov:type xsi:type="xsd:QName">prov:Revision</prov:type> >> >>>>>>> </prov:wasDerivedFrom> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> could now be modeled as >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> <prov:wasRevisionOf> >> >>>>>>> <prov:generatedEntity prov:ref="tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215"/> >> >>>>>>> <prov:usedEntity prov:ref="tr:WD-prov-dm-20111018"/> >> >>>>>>> </prov:wasRevisionOf> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> > > -- > 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 Thursday, 31 January 2013 16:31:21 UTC