Re: prov:Dictionary example - without the specs

On 5 June 2012 13:11, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:

> 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?
>

Yes, I think they allow for both direct assertion of membership (as is
specified using collection in your example), and indirect ones, using the
 qualified involvement.

khalid


>
> 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
>>
>
>
>