- From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:32:29 +0100
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Tim
scroll down...
On 4/19/12 1:41 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> Paolo,
>
>
>>
>> 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
>
> Because it's a bit verbose for a simple case, and the transition from URI to a literal in PROV-O (and casting back and forth) will
> be a headache.
>
> Although dictionaries _can_ be used for 2 and 1, it's too much effort.
> I suggest we keep dictionaries to do dictionary things and stop trying to contort it into its simple cases.
> That leaves:
> A) We add support for Sets in a direct way
> B) We just don't' support Sets in a direct way.
>
I am in favour of (A), called either:
prov:multiset (because they contain entities which may be the same although their id are different)
or
prov:set (if we go by string equality of the entity id)
> In either case, we can have prov:Collection (stripped of all of it's current meaning) as a superclass of prov:Dictionary (renamed
> from prov:Collections) and leave it to someone else to extend prov:Collection to make a simple, boring, their:Set.
yes, prov:Dictionary extends prov:(multi)set
-Paolo
Received on Friday, 20 April 2012 12:32:58 UTC