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

Re: actions related to collections

From: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:41:29 +0100
Message-ID: <4F9523C9.9070305@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
I am happy with that too!

-- Jun


On 23/04/2012 10:16, Paolo Missier wrote:
> I also agree --
> I support Collection being abstract and for extension only. Minimal
> impact on current DM content, as long as you don't start creating
> relations for those and then make Dictionary relations sub-relations of
> those etc. I woudn't go there.
>
> -Paolo
>
> On 4/20/12 9:55 PM, Luc Moreau 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 Monday, 23 April 2012 09:42:04 GMT

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