Re: actions related to collections



but let me read through the rest of the thread


On 4/19/12 11:02 AM, Jun Zhao wrote:
> Paolo,
> Good observation and good summary.
> For your information, my use case requires support of 2, not just 1.
> On 19/04/2012 09:55, Paolo Missier wrote:
>> One possibility is to have a Set type for 1 and 2 (I see no point having
>> a specific type for 1), and Dictionary for 3. This is done using prov:type.
>> But then again, why not just have Dictionary. It minimizes the number of
>> definitions. If all I need is a set (2), I can just have pairs (e,e) as
>> members --no need to invent keys. If I only need (1), I don't use
>> insert/removal.
> What does (e,e) denote? I am lost on the syntax.
> I think I can live with a structure without keys. But we have to be
> careful with how we name this.
> As Stephan said, which I also agree, if we call this a dictionary, then
> we got to have keys. If we get keys optional, then what is it? What do
> we call them?
> I am also with you that we should not have too many similar things in
> the DM. It will like letting kids in their candy shops, spoiled with
> choices and making mistakes:) If we can reconcile 1, 2, 3 in one
> structure under one good name, I will be happy with that.
> -- Jun
>> Additional thoughts?
>> -Paolo

-----------  ~oo~  --------------
Paolo Missier -,
School of Computing Science, Newcastle University,  UK

Received on Friday, 20 April 2012 12:29:29 UTC