Re: prov:Dictionary example - without the specs

Luc,

On the call today, we set aside concerns about CompleteDictionary, since there were not enough voiced objections.

However, I still have concerns about DM's "too specific" restriction on hadMember, which is between a Dictionary and a KeyValuePair.

I've copied the essence of the concern from a previous email, below.

For a model with interoperability as it's primary objective, 
I'm amazed that the DM precludes one from putting members into Collections, and only permits users to put members into its specialization(subclass), Dictionary.

Why block this interoperability AND extensibility?

I think the current modeling in PROV-O is a reasonable compromise to "leave the option open" to extend Collection, while "maintaining the scope" of this WG focusing on Dictionary.

Thanks,
Tim



On Jun 6, 2012, at 3:53 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:

> Luc,
> 
> On Jun 6, 2012, at 3:37 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> 
> 
> I'm wondering what outstanding issue is in this thread.
> Is it that you do not want to have a 
> 
>      prov:hadMember with domain Collection and range Entity, 
> 
> and instead restrain it to:
> 
>      prov:hadMember with domain Dictionary and range KeyValuePair
> 
> ?
> 
> I advocate the former, and think that you want the latter. 
> 
> Regards,
> Tim
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/CAPRnXtm52YzmjmpO4=Cx+q0um+UMpNdwMdjS68XjMhBmDi1pYQ@mail.gmail.com