- From: Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>
- Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:05:50 +0100
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>, Curt Tilmes <Curt.Tilmes@nasa.gov>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+=hbbdCMK-LmReVkJf2ySA4YJVhCbKZcoyFSwuUsQSDFi7a3w@mail.gmail.com>
I'm open to all suggestions regarding the name :)
2012/12/21 Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> Hi Tom
> I agree with your analysis. Looks like we are back to a ternary relation.
> I would think about its name though. HadIndexedMember? HadKeyedMember?
>
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton
> Southampton SO17 1BJ
> United Kingdom
>
> On 21 Dec 2012, at 06:14, "Tom De Nies" <tom.denies@ugent.be<mailto:
> tom.denies@ugent.be>> wrote:
>
>
> Hello all, thanks for your feedback so far.
>
> I think it's important to remark that hadMember for a Dictionary is
> fundamentally different than for Collection.
> To me, it's crucial that we associate the key with the membership
> relation, rather than with the entity, as Curt suggested.
> The suggestions using specialization seem like overkill to me, and will
> just throw off any users that were considering PROV-Dictionary.
> It's a pity really that hadMember can't have any additional attributes,
> even when we're designing an extension to PROV-DM, because for me, the
> following would be perfect:
>
> entity(d1, [prov:type="prov:Dictionary"])
> entity(e1)
> hadMember(d1, e1, [prov:key="k1"])
>
> If we can't do that, I suggest we introduce something along the lines of
> the following:
>
> entity(d1, [prov:type="prov:Dictionary"])
> entity(e1)
> hadKeyEntity(d1, e1, [prov:key="k1"])
>
> and then add the following inference to the constraints:
> IF hadKeyEntity(d1, e1, [prov:key="k1"]) THEN hadMember(d1, e1)
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
> - Tom
>
>
> 2012/12/20 Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu<mailto:zednis@rpi.edu>>
> 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<mailto:
> 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>
> >>>>> <mailto: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>
> >>>>>> <mailto: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>
> >>>>> <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%204487>
> >>>>> University of Southampton fax:+44 23 8059
> 2865<tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865>
> >>>>> <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865>
> >>>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ email:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto:
> email%3Al.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> >>>>> <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>>
> >>>>> United Kingdomhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm<
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm>
> >
> > --
> > 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 Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 21 December 2012 09:06:18 UTC