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

Re: actions related to collections

From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:28:59 +0100
Message-ID: <4F91568B.20503@ncl.ac.uk>
To: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Jun

multiset?

but let me read through the rest of the thread

-Paolo


On 4/19/12 11:02 AM, Jun Zhao wrote:
> Paolo,
>
> 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
>


-- 
-----------  ~oo~  --------------
Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org
School of Computing Science, Newcastle University,  UK
http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
Received on Friday, 20 April 2012 12:29:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:07:03 GMT