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

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

From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:23:43 -0600
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2756284C-8C69-4169-935B-52F42C5A9B85@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
I believe Luc is correct, this is a legacy name from when we had both dictionaryMemberOf and collectionMemberOf.

I will make the change to memberOf.

--Stephan

On Sep 18, 2012, at 8:49 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> 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 Thursday, 27 September 2012 15:24:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 27 September 2012 15:24:16 GMT