W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > April 2012

Re: actions related to collections

From: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 12:02:39 +0200
Message-ID: <4F8FE2BF.8070404@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org

Good observation and good summary.

For your information, my use case requires support of 2, not just 1.

On 19/04/2012 09:55, Paolo Missier wrote:
> One possibility is to have a Set type for 1 and 2 (I see no point having
> a specific type for 1), and Dictionary for 3. This is done using prov:type.
> But then again, why not just have Dictionary. It minimizes the number of
> definitions. If all I need is a set (2), I can just have pairs (e,e) as
> members --no need to invent keys. If I only need (1), I don't use
> insert/removal.

What does (e,e) denote? I am lost on the syntax.

I think I can live with a structure without keys. But we have to be 
careful with how we name this.

As Stephan said, which I also agree, if we call this a dictionary, then 
we got to have keys. If we get keys optional, then what is it? What do 
we call them?

I am also with you that we should not have too many similar things in 
the DM. It will like letting kids in their candy shops, spoiled with 
choices and making mistakes:) If we can reconcile 1, 2, 3 in one 
structure under one good name, I will be happy with that.

-- Jun

> Additional thoughts?
> -Paolo
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2012 10:03:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:14 UTC