- From: Stephan Zednik <zednis2@rpi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 21:34:50 -0600
- To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Added clarification between PROV and XML attributes, elements, and types. https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/bf218fcb4f7d On Apr 16, 2013, at 7:18 PM, Stephan Zednik <zednis2@rpi.edu> wrote: > A follow-up comment from Luc: > > "I pointed out that usage of "reference" and "relation" was a bit strange. > For reference, I suggested "denote". > > e.g. The xml-element prov:activity is used to DENOTE a prov:Activity Done (see changeset above). > > A PROV type attribute RELATION may be inferred ... > > I don't know what RELATION you mean here." That is poor wording on the "type attribute relation may be inferred..." it means a prov-"type" may be inferred from the complexType defined in the schema. I simplified the text to, 'When an extension xml-type is used a prov-"type" may be inferred.' --Stephan > > On Apr 16, 2013, at 7:16 PM, "Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker" <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: > >> PROV-ISSUE-667: attribute/element/type usage conventions in note [XML Serialization] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/667 >> >> Raised by: Stephan Zednik >> On product: XML Serialization >> >>> From Luc's feedback on PROV-XML WG Note: >> >> I find the use of terms "attribute", "element" and "type" very confusing. >> >> I suggest a systematic replace as follows, to distinguish the prov >> and xml usages of the terms. >> >> - attribute to become prov-"attribute" or xml-attribute >> - element to become prov-"element" or xml-element >> - type to become prov-"type" or xml-type >> >> For prov, I would also put them in quote. >> >> Likewise, see attached file for some occurrences. But systematic >> search is required. >> >> >> >> > > >
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2013 03:35:14 UTC