yes Paul, no problem, I wouldn't wait till the call, I would tell all editors now.

Luc

On 02/27/2013 10:16 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
I have this as part of the agenda item on the call tomorrow.

I'd like to decide by then.

@Luc are you ok with the underscore solution?


On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Ivan Herman <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    Very honestly: I do not have strong opinion here, I can go either
    way. But yes, we should decide soon.

    Ivan

    On Feb 27, 2013, at 11:02 , Paul Groth <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    > Have we come to a conclusion on this?
    >
    > We need to decide to let people go through the staging process.
    >
    > I'm in favor of prov:has_provenance . As this is a purely
    syntactic change from what we already had.
    >
    > cheers
    > Paul
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Graham Klyne
    <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
    > I would favour prov:has_provenance over prov:hasprovenance or
    prov:provenance.
    >
    > I have a concern that prov:provenance reads more like a class
    name than a
    > property/relation.  Also, can we be sure that, in future,
    someone won't want to
    > define prov:Provenance as a class of some kind?  (Because of the
    case
    > insensitive matching defined by RFC5988, and arguably good
    practice generally,
    > the capitalized form should be off-limits for future use if
    prov:provenance is
    > selected.
    >
    > #g
    > --
    >
    >
    > On 26/02/2013 10:51, Paul Groth wrote:
    > > That seems to be the best way then.
    > >
    > > so prov:hasprovenance or prov:has_provenance
    > >
    > > ?
    > >
    > > Paul
    > >
    > >
    > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Ivan Herman <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Do you mean the element that is generated into the header of
    the HTML? If
    > >> that is the only place it appears, I think we can change that
    for the
    > >> published PR document before handing it over to the webmaster.
    > >>
    > >> Ivan
    > >>
    > >> On Feb 26, 2013, at 10:42 , Luc Moreau
    <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> It's in the <link> element we added last week.
    > >>>
    > >>> On 26/02/2013 09:40, Ivan Herman wrote:
    > >>>> Graham,
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I am not sure I understand something.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I have looked at the prov-o document, and that document
    does not
    > >> mention the prov:hasProvenance term. Ie, where does this term
    appear in any
    > >> of the four Rec-track documents? More importantly, does it
    appear, if it
    > >> does, in a normative section?
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Ivan
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> On Feb 26, 2013, at 10:30 , Graham Klyne<[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>>  wrote:
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>> Hi,
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> [I'm keeping this off-list for now, because if Ivan says
    there's
    > >> nothing we can do at this juncture, I see little point in
    opening the issue
    > >> for wider discussion.  I am cc'ing www-archive so there's a
    record of our
    > >> discussion.]
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> This is a bit embarrassing, given an email I wrote just a
    couple of
    > >> days ago.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> I'm working through comments on PROV-AQ, and Stian has
    raised the
    > >> following:
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> [[
    > >>>>> 32) According to
    http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-4.2
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> When extension relation types are compared, they MUST be
    compared as
    > >>>>>    strings (after converting to URIs if serialised in a
    different
    > >>>>>    format, such as a Curie [W3C.CR-curie-20090116]) in a case-
    > >>>>>    insensitive fashion, character-by-character.  Because
    of this, all-
    > >>>>>    lowercase URIs SHOULD be used for extension relations.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Should we not have relation URIs that are all lowercase to
    avoid
    > >> problems?  ie.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Link:<http://acme.example.org/provenance/super-widget>;
    > >>>>>            rel="http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hasprovenance";
    > >>>>> ]]
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> I had completely missed this in RFC5988, and had forgotten
    about
    > >> Stian's comment when I replied a couple of days ago.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> If we hadn't just been through the incorporation of
    provenance links
    > >> into the published documents, I'd suggest changing
    "hasProvenance" to
    > >> "has_provenance" to avoid the problems noted.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> So, what now?  I see a few options:
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> (a) keep the same name, and simply note that, when used as
    a link
    > >> relation, prov:hasProvenance is compared case-insensitively.
    > >>>>> (b) if it's not too late, change the property name
    > >>>>> (c) define a second property that is all lowercase, and
    declared
    > >> equivalent to the first.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> As far as I can tell, the main consequence of going with
    option (a) is
    > >> that we MUST NOT in future define a different property/relation
    > >> prov:hasprovenance, as under some circumstances covered by
    RFC5988, this
    > >> would be indistinguishable from prov:hasProvenance.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Given where we now are, my inclination would be to stay
    with things as
    > >> they are, but add a note reserving the all lower-case versions of
    > >> prov:hasProvenance, etc., from future use because of the case
    insensitivity
    > >> comparison requirement.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> #g
    > >>>>> --
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> ----
    > >>>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
    > >>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
    > >>>> mobile: +31-641044153 <tel:%2B31-641044153>
    > >>>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>
    > >>> --
    > >>> Professor Luc Moreau
    > >>> Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487
    <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%204487>
    > >>> University of Southampton  fax: +44 23 8059 2865
    <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865>
    > >>> Southampton SO17 1BJ email: [email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>
    > >>> United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
    <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> ----
    > >> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
    > >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
    > >> mobile: +31-641044153 <tel:%2B31-641044153>
    > >> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > --
    > Dr. Paul Groth ([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>)
    > http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ <http://www.few.vu.nl/%7Epgroth/>
    > Assistant Professor
    > - Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group |
    >   Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
    > - The Network Institute
    > VU University Amsterdam


    ----
    Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
    Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
    mobile: +31-641044153 <tel:%2B31-641044153>
    FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf








--
--
Dr. Paul Groth ([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>)
http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ <http://www.few.vu.nl/%7Epgroth/>
Assistant Professor
- Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group |
  Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
- The Network Institute
VU University Amsterdam

--
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: [email protected]
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm

Reply via email to