difference between online translator and this library

[satra]

using the following example as input to this library and the online translator there is a difference in how qnames are handled. is there a definitive answer? (i would prefer what the online translator did)

https://github.com/trungdong/prov/blob/master/prov/tests/json/activity6.json

the main difference is how the element with type xsd:QName is handled.

Prov library

document
  prefix ex <http://example.org/>

  activity(ex:a6, -, -, [prov:location=1, prov:location="ex:london" %% xsd:QName, 
 prov:location="London", prov:location="1.0" %% xsd:float, 
 prov:location=2014-06-23T12:28:53.858000+01:00,
 prov:location="2002" %% xsd:gYear, prov:label="activity6"])
endDocument

Online translator

document
prefix xsd <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema>
prefix ex <http://example.org/>
activity(ex:a6,-,-,[prov:label = "activity6", prov:location = "London" %% xsd:string, prov:location = "1" %%
 xsd:int, prov:location = "1.0" %% xsd:float, prov:location = "true" %% xsd:boolean, prov:location =
 'ex:london', prov:location = "2014-06-23T12:28:53.858+01:00" %% xsd:dateTime, prov:location =
 "http://example.org/london" %% xsd:anyURI, prov:location = "2002" %% xsd:gYear])
endDocument

[satra]

also xsd:dateTime is handled differently.

[satra]

one more: the prov library doesn't distinguish between these two:

        {
          "$": "ex:london",
          "type": "xsd:QName"
        },
        {
          "$": "http://example.org/london",
          "type": "xsd:anyURI"
        },

it merges them into one.

[satra]

@trungdong - i hope you don't mind me bombarding with questions. i'm trudging through the tests and they sometimes raise questions:

for example:

Testing: 69, /software/nipy-repo/w3c/prov/prov/tests/json/attr_association_one_role_attr44.json
document
  prefix rdf <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>
  prefix ex <http://example.org/>

  wasAssociatedWith(ex:ass_r44; ex:a1, ex:ag1, None, [prov:role="<ap:aaa xmlns:ap="http://app/"><ap:bbb><ap:ccc/></ap:bbb></ap:aaa>" %% rdf:XMLLiteral])
endDocument`

how does prov deal with the fact that plan is None or plan is undefined?

[satra]

the problem with the example in attr_association_one_role_attr44.json is that formal_attributes is not a subset of attributes for this example.

[trungdong]

Hi @satra,

I have no problem at all. On the contrary, thank you very much for bringing these issues to our attention.

As you discovered, the PROV-N output has bugs. The main reason is that we don't have round-trip tests for them. These are annoying and is not helpful when you use them for debugging, but not critical.

The issue when QName and URI are merged is more important. I think this is caused by their hash function, which hashes only on the URI string. I'll look into this in a bit.

Sorry for my delay in responding. I'm saturated at the moment.

[trungdong]

Just fixed the merging of URI and QName in d8be84a.

[trungdong]

I could not reproduce the issue with prov:plan = None in an association.

The output on my machine is:
wasAssociatedWith(ex:ass_r44; ex:a1, ex:ag1, -, [prov:role="<ap:aaa xmlns:ap="http://app/"><ap:bbb><ap:ccc/></ap:bbb></ap:aaa>" %% rdf:XMLLiteral])
which is as expected.

[satra]

@trungdong - the None was a bug introduced in the rdf serializer that changed the graph representation. sorry for the noise there.