Re: PROV Dictionary

It would work, but feels heavy.

I personally prefer the original design.

Luc

On 12/20/2012 03:17 PM, Curt Tilmes wrote:
>
> Specialization?
>
> entity(d1, [prov:type='prov:Dictionary'])
> entity(d2, [prov:type='prov:Dictionary'])
>
> entity(e1)
>
> specializationOf(e1_1, e1)
> entity(e1_1, [prov:key='k1'])
> hadMember(d1, e1_1)
>
> specializationOf(e1_2, e1)
> entity(e1_2, [prov:key='k2'])
> hadMember(d2, e1_2)
>
> Gets kind of ugly though..
>
> Curt
>
> On 12/20/2012 09:49 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>
>> Hi Curt,
>>
>> What if e1 belongs to two dictionaries,  with keys k1 and k2, 
>> respectively?
>>
>> Luc
>>
>> On 12/20/2012 02:44 PM, Curt Tilmes wrote:
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

-- 
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

Received on Thursday, 20 December 2012 15:25:33 UTC