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 15:42:17 -0400
Cc: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>, PaoloMissier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C78122B4-718C-4F85-A1EF-9ACA808716C2@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On Apr 20, 2012, at 3:37 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Hi ,
> I would like to have further guidance on how to edit prov-dm next week.
> 
> Should section 2 introduce the concept collection, or dictionary, or both?

If it is not  too much effort, I would recommend introducing both. The collection as the "abstract" class of Dictionary, and is defined for "extension purposes".
Then, if the WG has appetite, we add prov:[Multi]Set. If not, then prov:Collection just stands as an extension point and only has prov:Dictionary defined.



> 
> Should the Collection component become the dictionary component?

I'd lean no. It would stay collections and we may only define one.

-Tim



> 
> Luc 
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton 
> Southampton SO17 1BJ
> United Kingdom
> 
> On 20 Apr 2012, at 19:45, "Paul Groth" <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:
> 
>> 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 19:43:24 GMT

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