ISSUE-536: Notation Section 2.3
Notation Section 2.3
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- prov-n
- Raised by:
- Paolo Missier
- Opened on:
- 2012-09-10
- Description:
- Is the use of "-" to indicate a missing term a standard convention? It seems unintuitive and potentially error-prone. NULL might be better if positional attributes are used (this issue is moot if named attributes are used; see issue 533 regarding "notation of attributes":
https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/533
There seems to be ambiguity in the syntax when the first parameter is option. For example, if both "wasDerivedFrom(e2, e1, a)" and "wasDerivedFrom(d, e2, e1)" are valid expressions, how can they be differentiated?
Example 1: (e2, e1, a) is an acceptable form of (e2, e1, a, -, -) Example 2: (d, e2, e1) is an acceptable form of (d, e2, e1, -, -, -)
Without named attributes, it is not possible to unambiguously determine how to parse "wasDerivedFrom(1, 2, 3)". Is it in the form of Example 1 or Example 2?
- Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Re: PROV-N responses (from l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-11-01)
- RE: PROV-N responses (from Freimuth.Robert@mayo.edu on 2012-10-31)
- PROV-N responses (from p.t.groth@vu.nl on 2012-10-27)
- prov-n proposed responses to comments (deadline Thursday 12noon GMT) (from l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-10-15)
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-536: Notation Section 2.3 [prov-n] (from l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-10-15)
- PROV-ISSUE-536: Notation Section 2.3 [prov-n] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-09-10)
Related notes:
No additional notes.
Display change log