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

Re: prov:Dictionary example - without the specs

From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 18:02:14 -0400
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <45C0D300-2CFA-48E2-9E0E-B967B592AD78@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On Jun 6, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Hi Paolo,
> 
> No that's not the issue I was trying to raise.
> 
> The definition of a list

we should not be narrowing Collection to only being a list.  Bag should be a valid possible extension of Collection.

> is classically:
> 
> - fun member(x,[]) = false
>  |   member(x,b::y) =
>        if x=b then true
>        else member(x,y);
> 
> where one needs to be able to compare elements (x=b)

> 
> Given two uris, one cannot decide whether the entities they denote are the same or not.
> Hence, we can't compute this member function. 

The implication is that lists are impossible in RDF.  I politely disagree.

> 
> We should not attempt to specify prov:Collection

I don't think we should try to specify a CWA dictionary either.

--Stephan

> 
> Luc
> 
> On 06/06/12 22:06, Paolo Missier wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> it seems to me that all the ping pong from this mail froward in the thread is about whether Collections should be sets or bags (multisets). In the latter case, it doesn't matter whether two URIs really refer to the same entity.
>> Is this the case? If so, would it be reasonable to accept that (abstract) Collections are bags, and Dictionaries as /sets/ (of key-valuye pairs)?
>> 
>> -Paolo
>> 
>> 
>> On 6/5/12 10:05 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).
>>> 
>>> 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
>>>>   
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> -----------  ~oo~  --------------
>> Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org 
>> School of Computing Science, Newcastle University,  UK
>> http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
>>   
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 22:02:46 UTC

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