Re: PROV Dictionary

Hi Curt,

Personally, I wouldn't overload these relation, which already have plenty
of arguments, unless there's a strong consensus about adding them.
You could just as easily write:

entity(d0, [prov:type="prov:Dictionary"]

entity(d1, [prov:type="prov:Dictionary"]
entity(e1)
activity(a1)
agent(ag1)
derivedByInsertionFrom(d1, d0, {("k1", e1)})
wasDerivedFrom(d1, d0, a1)
wasAssociatedWith(a1,ag1)

Regards,
Tom

2012/12/20 Curt Tilmes <Curt.Tilmes@nasa.gov>

> Should Insertion and Removal have optional activity and agent arguments?
>
> Curt
>
>
> On 12/18/2012 11:03 AM, 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<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/__raw-file/default/dictionary/__prov-dictionary.html>
>>     <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/**raw-file/default/dictionary/**
>> prov-dictionary.html<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
>>
>
>