- From: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:41:29 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
I am happy with that too! -- Jun On 23/04/2012 10:16, Paolo Missier wrote: > 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 >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > >
Received on Monday, 23 April 2012 09:42:04 UTC