Re: actions related to collections

This seems good as it reflects consensus from our vote and on the list.

Paul

On Apr 20, 2012, at 21:55, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi Tim,
> 
> Both your suggestions are fine with me.  
> 
> People, if you object to this view, please speak up!
> 
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton 
> Southampton SO17 1BJ
> United Kingdom
> 
> On 20 Apr 2012, at 20:42, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 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
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>