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

Re: actions related to collections

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 12:53:29 -0400
Cc: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8346F5A3-5135-446F-B7AA-DE8986BFF1C9@rpi.edu>
To: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>

On Apr 20, 2012, at 10:38 AM, Satya Sahoo wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:
> Just a note:
> 
> I think prov:Collection as a generic type would be nice as it could be
> used in many applications in however they see fit.
> 
> +1

+1

Does this mean that if we _only_ define dictionary we still include in class hierarchy:

prov:Collection
   --> prov:Dictionary

and if we _do_ include [Multi]Set, it becomes:

prov:Collection
   --> prov:Dictionary
   --> prov:[Multi]Set

?

I'm happy with both of these routes.

-Tim



> 
> Best,
> Satya
> 
>  
> Thanks
> Paul
> 
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Tim
> >
> > scroll down...
> >
> > On 4/19/12 1:41 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> >> Paolo,
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>
> >> Because it's a bit verbose for a simple case, and the transition from URI to a literal in PROV-O (and casting back and forth) will
> >> be a headache.
> >>
> >> Although dictionaries _can_ be used for 2 and 1, it's too much effort.
> >> I suggest we keep dictionaries to do dictionary things and stop trying to contort it into its simple cases.
> >> That leaves:
> >> A) We add support for Sets in a direct way
> >> B) We just don't' support Sets in a direct way.
> >>
> > I am in favour of (A), called either:
> >    prov:multiset (because they contain entities which may be the same although their id are different)
> > or
> >    prov:set (if we go by string equality of the entity id)
> >
> >> In either case, we can have prov:Collection (stripped of all of it's current meaning) as a superclass of prov:Dictionary (renamed
> >> from prov:Collections) and leave it to someone else to extend prov:Collection to make a simple, boring, their:Set.
> > yes, prov:Dictionary extends prov:(multi)set
> >
> > -Paolo
> >
> >
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 20 April 2012 16:54:13 GMT

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