- From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 09:07:28 -0600
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On May 15, 2012, at 7:13 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi Tim, > > On 05/15/2012 01:55 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote: >> prov-wg, >> >> When modeling Dictionaries, PROV-O had a straightforward way to model KeyValuePairs: >> >> [ >> a prov:KeyValuePair; >> prov:key "goalie"; >> prov:value :joe_the_tank; >> ] >> > > FYI, prov-dm talks about key-entity-set (key-entity pairs), since the term value means > something else in prov-dm. > I appreciated that prov:entity is already used in prov-o. > >> Then, DM introduced the reserved property "value" to do things like: >> >> entity(ex:in, [prov:value="abcd"]) >> entity(ex:out, [prov:value=4]) >> activity(ex:len, [prov:type="string-length"]) >> used(ex:len,ex:in) >> wasGeneratedBy(ex:out,ex:len) >> wasDerivedFrom(ex:out,ex:in) >> >> DM's "value" property is exactly how rdf:value has been used in the past decade: >> >> :parameter_1 >> a prov:Entity; >> rdf:value 1024; >> . >> >> but we wanted to reestablish prov:value because rdf:value's definition was "a bit" cloudy. >> So, we end up with: >> >> >> :parameter_1 >> a prov:Entity; >> prov:value 1024; >> . >> >> >> Unfortunately, the KeyValuePair's value collides with the DM's new value (rdf:value). >> >> So, we could: >> >> 1) relax prov:value's domain from KeyValuePair to Entity >> >> This would allow us to use prov:value in both KeyValuePairs as well as arbitrary "number entities". -1 This also does not provide the functionality the DM wants with prov:value (associating a literal value with the entity) and conflates prov:value to have two very different purposes. >> >> >> 2) Rename DM's "value" to "chars", inspired by cnt:chars from >> http://www.w3.org/TR/Content-in-RDF10/#ContentAsTextClass -1 I prefer "content" to "chars", but would prefer even more to use prov:value to be consistent with the DM. >> >> >> >> > > The names don't need to be exactly the same in prov-o/prov-dm. > Why can't you prov:pairValue or prov:pairEntity, instead of prov:value in pairs? +1 for prov:pairEntity --Stephan > > Luc >> Which of these options would the group prefer? >> >> Thanks, >> Tim >> >> ISSUE-363 >> > > -- > 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 Tuesday, 15 May 2012 15:08:03 UTC