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 14:36:10 -0400
Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>, PaoloMissier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B7927BFF-F640-447D-AF5A-8D4F35B21078@rpi.edu>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Sorry, I'm asking about beyond the current public release.

-Tim

On Apr 20, 2012, at 2:31 PM, Paul Groth wrote:

> 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
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
Received on Friday, 20 April 2012 18:38:55 GMT

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