Re: PROV Dictionary

Hi Tom,

The fundamental question is:
   should we consider ("k1",e1) as an entity?

In PROV, all entities have got an identifier. What is the identifier?


Luc


On 12/20/2012 02:23 PM, Tom De Nies wrote:
>
> Hello Luc,
>
> I understand your concern, and it's something we can address before 
> proceeding. During the last telecon, we motivated our desire to 
> redesign the original memberOf relation of Dictionary. Basically, we'd 
> like consistency with Collection membership.
>
> Would the notation hadMember(d1, e1, "k1") address you concern? 
> (without the brackets)
> In essence, this adds one attribute to the Collection membership for 
> Dictionary. It also would mean minimal changes througout the document.
>
> Tom
>
> On Dec 20, 2012 3:07 PM, "Luc Moreau" <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk 
> <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
>     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.
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-prov-dm-20121211/#concept-collection
>
>     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:
>     hadMember(d,e1)
>     but not
>     hadMember(d,("k1",e1))
>
>     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 review.
>
>     Luc
>
>
>     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 <sam.coppens@ugent.be
>>     <mailto:sam.coppens@ugent.be>>
>>
>>         Hello everybody,
>>
>>         The Dictionary Note
>>         (http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dictionary/prov-dictionary.html)
>>         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  <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%204487>
>     University of Southampton          fax:+44 23 8059 2865  <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865>
>     Southampton SO17 1BJ               email:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk  <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>     United Kingdomhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm  <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm>
>

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm