Re: prov:Dictionary example - without the specs

Khalid,

On Jun 5, 2012, at 5:39 AM, Khalid Belhajjame wrote:

> Hi Tim,
> 
> It looks good to me.

Thanks.

> We should note however that we cannot explicitly specify membership completeness, in the sense that we are not be able to assert that the members specified using hadMember are the only members of the dictionary (or collection).


I don't think that collection completeness should be part of PROV. 
There is too much conflict between the open and closed world assumptions across the different encodings.
It should be left for others to add in their extensions.


> If we are happy with this, then what you are suggesting makes sense to me.

So you agree with all of the terms that were renamed?

Regards,
Tim


> 
> khalid
> 
> 
> On 5 June 2012 06:25, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
> prov-wg,
> 
> I tried my hand at modeling the provenance of the U.S. Supreme Court's current membership, and its derivation to it's first membership.
> 
> The wiki page for the example is at:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Eg-34-us-supreme-court-membership
> 
> In an attempt to take a fresh look at how we're modeling dictionaries (and collections?), I didn't reference PROV-DM, PROV-O, or any other examples or documentation -- I just tried to describe the subject matter.
> 
> 
> How does it look?
> 
> I'd like to move PROV-O (and DM, if it needs tweaking) towards this kind of modeling and naming.
> 
> Discussion and feedback encouraged.
> 
> Later today, I'll try to start from scratch on the DM and work through the current PROV-O modeling, and then the recent threads on this topic.
> I hope by then we can converge on a satisfactory design.
> 
> Regards,
> Tim
>