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 13:57:31 -0400
Cc: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>, 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: <EE3F7705-608E-4DDD-B0DC-1190C1AE10C7@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Luc,

On Apr 20, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> Given all the editorial issues the editors have got to tackle, I would like to see someone taking the   Initiative and putting together a first draft for such a notion of collection: definition, concept, relations, etc.  thanks!

What would be the consequences of _not_ getting these drafts ?

prov:Dictionary would be the only "collection", and prov:Collection (the generic thing) and prov:[Multi]Set would not be included in PROV?

Thanks,
TIm


> 
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton 
> Southampton SO17 1BJ
> United Kingdom
> 
> On 20 Apr 2012, at 15:39, "Satya Sahoo" <satya.sahoo@case.edu> 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
>> 
>> 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 18:00:16 GMT

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