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

Re: actions related to collections

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:04:38 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtm3noDJjh2URCf5N1c0w+zDhU-QLdJ07+6NS3oooggeUw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, 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>
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 20:42, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
> 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.

So the prov:Collection would just be an anchor point with no
relations, except prov:Dictionary is a subclass?

I would think memberOf() would be a minimum requirement for a
prov:Collection to be useful - but that would raise question on how it
relates to Dictionary memberOf().

The simplest solution is that the simple memberOf() just says that an
entity was a member of the collection - but nothing about how it got
there (it is not a provenance relation, it is more of an attribute of
the entity).

Then both dictionary insertion and dictionary membership will imply
the simple entity membership. (and dictionary removal could infer
membership in the old collection - but I know that is a  bomb we don't
want to defuse)



-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 09:05:31 GMT

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