W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > June 2012

Re: prov:Dictionary example - without the specs

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 17:29:28 -0400
Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <108D0A06-D418-44B8-9C0B-8A68AFD797EE@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On Jun 5, 2012, at 5:26 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Dictionary keys can be compared. Hence, after insertion and removal, we can always determine a new dictionary state if we knew the state before operation.


okay. But why should that prevent someone from asserting that an Entity is a member of a Collection?
I feel like your "we can't assume reasoning/inference; it's a data model" argument applies here (this time, against your position).

-Tim




> 
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton 
> Southampton SO17 1BJ
> United Kingdom
> 
> On 5 Jun 2012, at 22:11, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 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).
>> 
>> 
>> huh? Why does that matter? In that case, we wouldn't be able to do it for Dictionaries, either.
>> 
>> 
>> -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
>>>>   
>> 
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 21:30:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:16 UTC