- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 18:34:07 +0100
- To: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Paolo Missier wrote: > Hi Graham, > > (second attempt... sorry) > > On 8/4/11 8:13 AM, Graham Klyne wrote: >> My comment was made somewhat on the fly as I was reading the document. I >> probably over-reacted in suggesting the use of identifiers was >> "inappropriate". >> >> But as I was reading this, I felt that I was being asked to make a >> shift of >> mental perspective when the text started to talk about "identifier >> scope". For >> the purposes of data modelling, I would say that where identifiers are >> mentioned, their context of appearance is part of their identity as >> identifiers >> (if that makes sense). Scoping is a *linguistic* technique used to >> disambiguate >> different appearances of the same character string used as as a different >> identifier in different contexts. > that's a good lecture on scope in programming languages, thanks :-) but > the way the term is intended here has to do with the context within > which a reference can be resolved, perhaps you would call it "validity" > or something else. The point is that identifiers are meant to be local > to a group of (related) assertions, and there is no expectation that > they can be resolved outside that context. It seems to me the data model should define what is "accessible" in any context. If, for example, you assume everything is uniquely identified then what you need to describe is this accessibility without an appeal to "scoping" Maybe what you need is a notation to describe your data model - if that's it, then I think a separate section on the notation you use would be appropriate. Just a thought. #g
Received on Thursday, 4 August 2011 17:45:59 UTC