Re: Collections in PROV-O

On 23/02/2012 14:59, Paolo Missier wrote:
> Jun
>
> You can just use derivation for that, right?
> something to that effect is stated in DM sec.6.8:
>
> " In general, all assertions reflect the asserter's partial knowledge of a sequence of data transformation events. In the particular case of collection evolution, in which the asserter knows that some of the state changes may have been missed, then the more generic wasDerivedFrom relation should be used to signal that some updates may have occurred, which cannot be precisely asserted as insertions or removals."
>
> does that address your point?

Paolo,

I think I confused you.

I want to express two types of relationships between two entities, one 
of which is a collection of another:

1/ the containment relationship between two entities, i.e A contained by B.

2/ a derivation relationship. I don't need to express exactly which 
element was deleted or inserted. I believe the wasDerivedFrom helps me.


But what about the simple containment relationship, like A is contained 
by B? I don't want to specify key, value things like that.

-- Jun
>
> --Paolo
>
>
>
>
> On 2/23/12 2:47 PM, Jun Zhao wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> What if people don't have key-value pair for their collection structure?
> Instead, they just want to simply express that one entity is contained
> by another, like what we have in the Provenance Vocabulary:
>
> A prv:containedBy B .
>
> Can we express that in prov-o?
>
> I don't need to express what element was deleted or inserted. I just
> want to express a containment and derivation relationship.
>
> Can I do that?
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Jun
>
>

Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 15:08:13 UTC