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

Re: actions related to collections

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 20:44:48 +0200
Message-ID: <ACFF02DD-139F-4982-8DEC-56F2D9494BFC@vu.nl>
CC: "Groth, P.T." <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, 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>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Hi Tim

The consequences you outline would be the case. 

Paul

On Apr 20, 2012, at 20:36, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:

> 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 18:45:22 GMT

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