Re: actions related to collections

Tim, Paul,
I agree with Paul.
Luc

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

On 20 Apr 2012, at 19:45, "Paul Groth" <p.t.groth@vu.nl<mailto:p.t.groth@vu.nl>> wrote:

Hi Tim

The consequences you outline would be the case.

Paul

On Apr 20, 2012, at 20:36, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:satya.sahoo@case.edu>> wrote:

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl<mailto: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<mailto: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
>
>