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: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 07:22:20 +0000
To: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
CC: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FCD31AD0-25B5-4981-87C6-4EC2E3EDFDCA@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Hi Stephan

Comment below,

On 28 Sep 2012, at 16:47, "Stephan Zednik" <zednis@rpi.edu<mailto:zednis@rpi.edu>> wrote:

On Sep 28, 2012, at 3:10 AM, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote:

Hi Stephan
HadMember in prov-dm does not have a complete flag, nor an Id.

Should this become:

 <xs:complexType name="Membership">
     <xs:element name="collection" type="prov:EntityRef"/>
     <xs:element name="entity"          type="prov:EntityRef" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>

This change makes sense to me.  I'll make the update.


Also, do we allow multiple entities?

I believe we have always allowed multiple entities in the XML serialization.  We may want to have a discussion of whether to keep doing this, but I believe it is a useful convenience for merging many hadMember assertions and I believe that it maps cleanly to the DM.


Finally, should this be HadMember rather than Membership like the other relations?

I named the complexType after the concept name from the DM http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#term-membership.

prov:hadMember is the element of documentElements that is used to reference an instantiation of the Membership complexType, so the terminology of the serialized xml should match PROV-N.

XML serialisation is good. Other relation types in the ml schema don't follow the same convention.

<prov:document xmlns:prov="http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#">
  <prov:entity prov:id="e0"/>
  <prov:entity prov:id="e1"/>
  <prov:entity prov:id="e2"/>

  <prov:entity prov:id="c">

    <prov:collection prov:ref="c"/>
    <prov:entity prov:ref="e0"/>
    <prov:entity prov:ref="e1"/>
    <prov:entity prov:ref="e2"/>



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


On 09/27/2012 04:39 PM, Stephan Zednik wrote:
I have updated the xml schema to align with PROV-DM terminology and updated xml serialization examples accordingly.


and will now change the ISSUE status to PENDING REVIEW.


On Sep 27, 2012, at 9:27 AM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu<mailto:zednis@rpi.edu>> wrote:

Correction, I will rename collectionMemberOf to hadMember.


On Sep 27, 2012, at 9:23 AM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu<mailto:zednis@rpi.edu>> wrote:

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.


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


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<mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org>> wrote:

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


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.

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<mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Saturday, 29 September 2012 07:22:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:19 UTC