Re: PROV Dictionary

Hi Tom and Sam,

Sorry for the delay.
I have some concerns about the proposed membership relation.

PROV requires members of a collection to be entities.

Given this, your relation
hadMember(d, ("k1", e1))
seems to indicate that ("k1",e1) is also an entity.

It's not how I had initially envisaged this to work. I see e1 as an entity
belonging to the dictionary d, with "k1" it's key.
So, in my view, we have:
but not

If ("k1",e1) is an entity, what is its identifier?

Grammatically, hadMember(d,("k1",e1)) is not compatible with the
prov-n notation, since the second argument of hadMember has to
be a qualified name (the identity of the member).

To me, it's important that we address this issue, before going into a 


On 12/18/2012 04:03 PM, Tom De Nies wrote:
> Specific questions we have for reviewers are:
> 1. Is the notation of Dictionary concepts clear & acceptable for you? 
> (in PROV-N and PROV-O)
> 2. Are the constraints acceptable, or are they too loose/too strict?
> 3. Are you happy with the solution to the issue regarding 
> completeness? (Tracing back to an EmptyDictionary)
> 4. Is the note ready to be published as FPWD?
> We would like to end the internal review after the first week of the 
> new year.
> Thanks everyone, and happy holidays!
> Tom
> 2012/12/18 Sam Coppens Ugent < 
> <>>
>     Hello everybody,
>     The Dictionary Note
>     (
>     has been finalised for review. Feedback on the note is welcome.
>     Could everybody also check the authors of the document? If someone
>     is missing, let us know.
>     Thanks a lot!
>     Best Regards,
>     Sam & Tom

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email:
United Kingdom           

Received on Thursday, 20 December 2012 14:07:02 UTC