Re: prov:Dictionary example - without the specs

On Jun 5, 2012, at 5:05 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Hi Tim,
> 
> Thanks for your example.
> 
> The following is not valid according to prov-dm:
> 
> prov:hadMember                                             # These would be asserted on a simple (first step)
>     36       <http://dbpedia.org/resource/John_Glover_Roberts,_Jr.>, # prov:Collection.
>     37       <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Antonin_Scalia>,           #
>     38       <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Anthony_Kennedy>,          #
>     39       <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Clarence_Thomas>,          #
>     40       <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg>,      #
>     41       <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Stephen_Breyer>,           #
>     42       <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Samuel_Alito>,             #
>     43       <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Sonia_Sotomayor>,          #
>     44       <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Elena_Kagan>;       
> 
> The key reason why we went for a dictionary and, say, a set of entities,
> is that we are unable to decide whether an entity belongs to a set on the basis of
> its urls (since the same entity may be denoted by multiple urls).

BTW, the purpose of hadMember is to "leave it open" for extension in the future, and to allow others to use the "simple set" if they'd like (THEY DO). Though, we don't provide anything beyond that (qualified insertion / removal of simple sets) -- that's for extensions to do.

-Tim

> 
> Luc
> 
> On 05/06/2012 06:25, Timothy Lebo 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
>>