Re: PROV Dictionary

hadMember(c,e) can't have additional attributes or other arguments.

You could do something like:

entity(d, [prov:type='prov:Dictionary'])
entity(e1, [prov:key='k1'])
hadMember(d, e1)

This adds prov:key to the 'prov:' namespace, but that should be ok,
since we've said Notes can do so.

We could make it a little more specific to Dictionaries with 
"prov:dictkey='k1'".


I'm also not sure what to do with multiple membership like:

d = [(k1, e1), (k2, e1)]

(Just give it two "prov:key"s?)

Curt

On 12/20/2012 09:23 AM, 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
>

Received on Thursday, 20 December 2012 14:44:51 UTC