Re: actions related to collections

I also agree --
I support Collection being abstract and for extension only. Minimal impact on current DM content, as long as you don't start 
creating relations for those and then make Dictionary relations sub-relations of those etc. I woudn't go there.

-Paolo

On 4/20/12 9:55 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> Both your suggestions are fine with me.
>
> People, if you object to this view, please speak up!
>
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton
> Southampton SO17 1BJ
> United Kingdom
>
> On 20 Apr 2012, at 20:42, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu <mailto:lebot@rpi.edu>> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 20, 2012, at 3:37 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>
>>> Hi ,
>>> I would like to have further guidance on how to edit prov-dm next week.
>>>
>>> Should section 2 introduce the concept collection, or dictionary, or both?
>>
>> If it is not  too much effort, I would recommend introducing both. The collection as the "abstract" class of Dictionary, and is 
>> defined for "extension purposes".
>> Then, if the WG has appetite, we add prov:[Multi]Set. If not, then prov:Collection just stands as an extension point and only has 
>> prov:Dictionary defined.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Should the Collection component become the dictionary component?
>>
>> I'd lean no. It would stay collections and we may only define one.
>>
>> -Tim
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>     >
>>>>>>>>>     >
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>


-- 
-----------  ~oo~  --------------
Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org
School of Computing Science, Newcastle University,  UK
http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier