- From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:36:40 +0200
- To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- CC: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Stian On 4/25/12 11:04 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > 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? yes my personal view: everything else is something that we will only have time for in the context of a separate document, but most likely not in the rec. -Paolo > 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) > > > -- ----------- ~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
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 09:37:12 UTC