- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 20:44:48 +0200
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- CC: "Groth, P.T." <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>, PaoloMissier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <ACFF02DD-139F-4982-8DEC-56F2D9494BFC@vu.nl>
Hi Tim The consequences you outline would be the case. Paul On Apr 20, 2012, at 20:36, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: > Sorry, I'm asking about beyond the current public release. > > -Tim > > On Apr 20, 2012, at 2:31 PM, Paul Groth wrote: > >> Hi Tim >> >> Yes. Right now in the prov to be released there is only prov:Dictionary as we agreed. >> >> Paul >> >> On Apr 20, 2012, at 19:57, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: >> >>> Luc, >>> >>> On Apr 20, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Given all the editorial issues the editors have got to tackle, I would like to see someone taking the Initiative and putting together a first draft for such a notion of collection: definition, concept, relations, etc. thanks! >>> >>> What would be the consequences of _not_ getting these drafts ? >>> >>> prov:Dictionary would be the only "collection", and prov:Collection (the generic thing) and prov:[Multi]Set would not be included in PROV? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> TIm >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Professor Luc Moreau >>>> Electronics and Computer Science >>>> University of Southampton >>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ >>>> United Kingdom >>>> >>>> On 20 Apr 2012, at 15:39, "Satya Sahoo" <satya.sahoo@case.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote: >>>>> Just a note: >>>>> >>>>> I think prov:Collection as a generic type would be nice as it could be >>>>> used in many applications in however they see fit. >>>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Satya >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Paul >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>> > 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 18:45:22 UTC