- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:04:38 +0100
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>, PaoloMissier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 20:42, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: > 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. So the prov:Collection would just be an anchor point with no relations, except prov:Dictionary is a subclass? I would think memberOf() would be a minimum requirement for a prov:Collection to be useful - but that would raise question on how it relates to Dictionary memberOf(). The simplest solution is that the simple memberOf() just says that an entity was a member of the collection - but nothing about how it got there (it is not a provenance relation, it is more of an attribute of the entity). Then both dictionary insertion and dictionary membership will imply the simple entity membership. (and dictionary removal could infer membership in the old collection - but I know that is a bomb we don't want to defuse) -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 09:05:31 UTC