Re: actions related to collections

Hi Tim

Yes. Right now in the prov to be released there is only prov:Dictionary as we agreed.

Paul

On Apr 20, 2012, at 19:57, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:

> 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
>>> >
>>> >
>>> 
>>> 
>