Re: PROV Dictionary

I believe Tim and myself had discussed a similar line of reasoning to what Curt is suggesting when we were trying to see how Dictionary membership could work in PROV-O (before Dictionary was split out into its own note).

We were at the time trying to use a unified non-qualified membership relation that worked for dictionaries as well as general collections.  In PROV-O this lead to the question of where does the key information reside?

Right now I like the idea of 

hadMember(d1, e1, "k1")

The dictionary note can define the attribute prov:dictKey which is used in a membership relation when the collection is a dictionary.  We may want to define a new relation such as hadDictionaryMember( ) so we are not overloading the existing membership relation.

I am still not completely sure about what to do with unqualified dictionary membership properties in PROV-O.  Perhaps one is simply not defined for dictionaries?

--Stephan

On Dec 20, 2012, at 8:24 AM, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> 
> 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 17:52:48 UTC