- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 12:49:40 -0500
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
On Nov 10, 2011, at 10:02 AM, Graham Klyne wrote: > On 07/11/2011 22:19, Luc Moreau wrote: > > Here is a first draft of the literal section. > > > > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#record-literal > > I have problems with this. > > (1) The first paragraph is confusing. Es[pecially the second sentence - what is this trying to say? > > (2) "a PROV-DM Literal may be a URI-typed string (with datatype xsd:anyURI), or URI-denoted resource (with datatype rdf:Resource); in either case; such URI has no specific interpretation in the context of PROV-DM." > > Firstly, the structure here is so close to the structure of RDF literals, that to then not adopt the standard RDF semantics for them is, IMO, a recipe for much confusion. > > Secondly, the idea of using rdf:Resource as a datatype URI seems to fly in the face of RDF. If you are going to explicitly use RDF URIs, I think it's crucial to adopt RDF semantics for them. > > ... > > Personally, I think DM would do better to back off from specifying URIs and RDF-style literals, and just talk about names and literals, specifying a minimum that you need to express the abstract model. +10 We seem safe with "A PROV-DM Literal represents a value whose interpretation is outside the scope of PROV-DM." and "in either case; such URI has no specific interpretation in the context of PROV-DM." -Tim > > The Ontology document can then carry the task of mapping the abstract model to RDF, which IMO would lead to a much cleaner separation of concerns. > > #g > -- > > > On 07/11/2011 22:19, Luc Moreau wrote: >> Hi Tim, Stephan, Jim, >> >> Here is a first draft of the literal section. >> >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#record-literal >> >> >> It would be good to have your feedback. >> If you find it's ok, than the literals examples in the document need to be checked. >> >> Cheers, >> Luc >> >> On 07/11/11 18:15, Jim McCusker wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Paolo Missier<Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk> wrote: >>>> DM says: >>>> >>>> 5.5.5 Literal >>>> >>>> Literals represent data values such as particular string or integers. >>>> >>>> My understanding is it's always been used in the standard grammar production >>>> meaning (eg: http://savage.net.au/SQL/sql-2003-2.bnf.html#literal). Not so? >>> I think a clearer definition would be: >>> >>> A Provenance Literal is a "leaf" value. It does not explicitly have >>> any outgoing relations (in SW-ish: Is not a subject of any statement) >>> in the PROV data model. Any outgoing relations from a Provenance >>> Literal is out of scope for the PROV DM. >>> >>> Jim >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2011 17:50:09 UTC