- From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:17:31 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
agreed (this is in fact what commonly happens in languages where you cannot have the same term appear with different arities) -Paolo On 2/6/12 9:52 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > PROV-ISSUE-243 (TLebo): how to interpret ASN assertions with incomplete arity? > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/243 > > Raised by: Timothy Lebo > On product: > > wasGeneratedBy is defined as arity 5. > > The DM asserts in a rule (I've changed the variables): > > wasGeneratedBy(a,b,c) > > is c a(n) 1) Activity 2) Time 3) attribute-values? > > The answer is intended to be 3), but it is clearly ambiguous without context. > > I propose to include parameter omissions explicitly in ASN statements: > > wasGeneratedBy(a,b,[],[],c) > > Thanks, > Tim > > > > > > -- ----------- ~oo~ -------------- Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, UK http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
Received on Monday, 6 February 2012 23:24:12 UTC