Re: PROV Dictionary

Hello all, thanks for your feedback so far.

I think it's important to remark that hadMember for a Dictionary is
fundamentally different than for Collection.
To me, it's crucial that we associate the key with the membership relation,
rather than with the entity, as Curt suggested.
The suggestions using specialization seem like overkill to me, and will
just throw off any users that were considering PROV-Dictionary.
It's a pity really that hadMember can't have any additional attributes,
even when we're designing an extension to PROV-DM, because for me, the
following would be perfect:

entity(d1, [prov:type="prov:Dictionary"])
> entity(e1)
> hadMember(d1, e1, [prov:key="k1"])
>

If we can't do that, I suggest we introduce something along the lines of
the following:

entity(d1, [prov:type="prov:Dictionary"])
> entity(e1)
> hadKeyEntity(d1,  e1, [prov:key="k1"])
>

and then add the following inference to the constraints:

> IF hadKeyEntity(d1,  e1, [prov:key="k1"]) THEN hadMember(d1, e1)
>

Any thoughts on this?

- Tom


2012/12/20 Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>

> I believe Tim and myself had discussed a similar line of reasoning to what
> Curt is suggesting when we were trying to see how Dictionary membership
> could work in PROV-O (before Dictionary was split out into its own note).
>
> We were at the time trying to use a unified non-qualified membership
> relation that worked for dictionaries as well as general collections.  In
> PROV-O this lead to the question of where does the key information reside?
>
> Right now I like the idea of
>
> hadMember(d1, e1, "k1")
>
> The dictionary note can define the attribute prov:dictKey which is used in
> a membership relation when the collection is a dictionary.  We may want to
> define a new relation such as hadDictionaryMember( ) so we are not
> overloading the existing membership relation.
>
> I am still not completely sure about what to do with unqualified
> dictionary membership properties in PROV-O.  Perhaps one is simply not
> defined for dictionaries?
>
> --Stephan
>
> On Dec 20, 2012, at 8:24 AM, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> > It would work, but feels heavy.
> >
> > I personally prefer the original design.
> >
> > Luc
> >
> > On 12/20/2012 03:17 PM, Curt Tilmes wrote:
> >>
> >> Specialization?
> >>
> >> entity(d1, [prov:type='prov:Dictionary'])
> >> entity(d2, [prov:type='prov:Dictionary'])
> >>
> >> entity(e1)
> >>
> >> specializationOf(e1_1, e1)
> >> entity(e1_1, [prov:key='k1'])
> >> hadMember(d1, e1_1)
> >>
> >> specializationOf(e1_2, e1)
> >> entity(e1_2, [prov:key='k2'])
> >> hadMember(d2, e1_2)
> >>
> >> Gets kind of ugly though..
> >>
> >> Curt
> >>
> >> On 12/20/2012 09:49 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Curt,
> >>>
> >>> What if e1 belongs to two dictionaries,  with keys k1 and k2,
> respectively?
> >>>
> >>> Luc
> >>>
> >>> On 12/20/2012 02:44 PM, Curt Tilmes wrote:
> >>>> hadMember(c,e) can't have additional attributes or other arguments.
> >>>>
> >>>> You could do something like:
> >>>>
> >>>> entity(d, [prov:type='prov:Dictionary'])
> >>>> entity(e1, [prov:key='k1'])
> >>>> hadMember(d, e1)
> >>>>
> >>>> This adds prov:key to the 'prov:' namespace, but that should be ok,
> >>>> since we've said Notes can do so.
> >>>>
> >>>> We could make it a little more specific to Dictionaries with
> >>>> "prov:dictkey='k1'".
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm also not sure what to do with multiple membership like:
> >>>>
> >>>> d = [(k1, e1), (k2, e1)]
> >>>>
> >>>> (Just give it two "prov:key"s?)
> >>>>
> >>>> Curt
> >>>>
> >>>> On 12/20/2012 09:23 AM, Tom De Nies wrote:
> >>>>> Hello Luc,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I understand your concern, and it's something we can address before
> >>>>> proceeding. During the last telecon, we motivated our desire to
> redesign
> >>>>> the original memberOf relation of Dictionary. Basically, we'd like
> >>>>> consistency with Collection membership.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Would the notation hadMember(d1, e1, "k1") address you concern?
> (without
> >>>>> the brackets)
> >>>>> In essence, this adds one attribute to the Collection membership for
> >>>>> Dictionary. It also would mean minimal changes througout the
> document.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Tom
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Dec 20, 2012 3:07 PM, "Luc Moreau" <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> >>>>> <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     Hi Tom and Sam,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     Sorry for the delay.
> >>>>>     I have some concerns about the proposed membership relation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     PROV requires members of a collection to be entities.
> >>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-prov-dm-20121211/#concept-collection
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     Given this, your relation
> >>>>>     hadMember(d, ("k1", e1))
> >>>>>     seems to indicate that ("k1",e1) is also an entity.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     It's not how I had initially envisaged this to work. I see e1 as
> an
> >>>>>     entity
> >>>>>     belonging to the dictionary d, with "k1" it's key.
> >>>>>     So, in my view, we have:
> >>>>>     hadMember(d,e1)
> >>>>>     but not
> >>>>>     hadMember(d,("k1",e1))
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     If ("k1",e1) is an entity, what is its identifier?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     Grammatically, hadMember(d,("k1",e1)) is not compatible with the
> >>>>>     prov-n notation, since the second argument of hadMember has to
> >>>>>     be a qualified name (the identity of the member).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     To me, it's important that we address this issue, before going
> into
> >>>>>     a review.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     Luc
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     On 12/18/2012 04:03 PM, Tom De Nies wrote:
> >>>>>>     Specific questions we have for reviewers are:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>     1. Is the notation of Dictionary concepts clear & acceptable for
> >>>>>>     you? (in PROV-N and PROV-O)
> >>>>>>     2. Are the constraints acceptable, or are they too loose/too
> >>>>>> strict?
> >>>>>>     3. Are you happy with the solution to the issue regarding
> >>>>>>     completeness? (Tracing back to an EmptyDictionary)
> >>>>>>     4. Is the note ready to be published as FPWD?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>     We would like to end the internal review after the first week of
> >>>>>>     the new year.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>     Thanks everyone, and happy holidays!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>     Tom
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>     2012/12/18 Sam Coppens Ugent <sam.coppens@ugent.be
> >>>>>>     <mailto:sam.coppens@ugent.be>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>         Hello everybody,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>         The Dictionary Note
> >>>>>> (
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dictionary/prov-dictionary.html
> )
> >>>>>>         has been finalised for review. Feedback on the note is
> welcome.
> >>>>>>         Could everybody also check the authors of the document? If
> >>>>>>         someone is missing, let us know.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>         Thanks a lot!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>         Best Regards,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>         Sam & Tom
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     --
> >>>>>     Professor Luc Moreau
> >>>>>     Electronics and Computer Science   tel:+44 23 8059 4487
> >>>>> <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%204487>
> >>>>>     University of Southampton          fax:+44 23 8059 2865
> >>>>> <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865>
> >>>>>     Southampton SO17 1BJ email:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> >>>>> <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> >>>>>     United Kingdomhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
> >
> > --
> > Professor Luc Moreau
> > Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
> > University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
> > Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> > United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
> >
> >
> >
>
>