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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-557: why collectionMemberOf instead of hadMember? [XML Serialization]

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:49:45 +0000
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A3046847-8E36-4088-8315-2CBFF22FD8B5@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Hi,

This relation is still legacy definition dating back from the time we had dictionary/collection.

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton 
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom

On 18 Sep 2012, at 15:19, "Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker" <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:

> PROV-ISSUE-557: why collectionMemberOf instead of hadMember? [XML Serialization]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/557
> 
> Raised by: Curt Tilmes
> On product: XML Serialization
> 
> I realize collectionMemberOf has extra capabilities over a straight hadMember translation (you can specify the 'complete' flag, and specify multiple members in one go), but could we not keep the "hadMember" name for that element even so?
> 
> All the other XML schema fields have kept the same name for the PROV-N and PROV-XML concepts, it just seems a shame to replace hadMember with collectionMemberOf.
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2012 14:50:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 September 2012 14:50:36 GMT