Re: PROV Dictionary

Or just make a new entity for each (k,e) pair:

entity(d1, [prov:type='prov:Dictionary'])
entity(d2, [prov:type='prov:Dictionary'])

entity(e1)

entity(e1_1, [prov:type=prov:DictionaryMember,
               prov:key='k1', prov:entity=e1])
hadMember(d1, e1_1)

entity(e1_2, [prov:type=prov:DictionaryMember,
               prov:key='k2', prov:entity=e1])
hadMember(d2, e1_2)

Curt

On 12/20/2012 10:17 AM, 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Received on Thursday, 20 December 2012 15:28:55 UTC