Re: PROV Dictionary

[Written before I read some later comments.  I'm still sending the message, but 
it's probably overtaken by other discussion.]

On 20/12/2012 14:23, 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.

I made similar comment, but would suggest a different approach.  I think the key 
itself should be part of an entity that is a member of a dictionary.  Hence 
(k,e) is itself an entity.

One might consider enhancing the entity declaration:

   Entity(e; [prov:key=k])

Thus allowing

   hadMember(d, (k, e))

to be syntactic sugar for:

   Entity(e; [prov:key=k])
   hadMember(d, e)

[Later, I see you want to keep the key separate.  I think the alternatives can 
work too.  More comments later.]

#g
--

> On Dec 20, 2012 3:07 PM, "Luc Moreau" <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>
>>
>>> 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
>> 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 Saturday, 29 December 2012 18:26:41 UTC