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

RE: actions related to collections

From: Miles, Simon <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 09:19:38 +0100
To: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FE37361E55FDC343A27E119DFB7785BB40B542CD3A@KCL-MAIL04.kclad.ds.kcl.ac.uk>
Seems sensible to me too

thanks, Simon

Dr Simon Miles
Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166

Automatically Adapting Source Code to Document Provenance:
http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1397/

________________________________
From: Paul Groth [p.t.groth@vu.nl]
Sent: 20 April 2012 21:13
To: Luc Moreau
Cc: Timothy Lebo; Groth, P.T.; Satya Sahoo; PaoloMissier; public-prov-wg@w3.org
Subject: 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:satya.sahoo@case.edu>> wrote:

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl<mailto: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<mailto: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 Saturday, 21 April 2012 08:21:30 GMT

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