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: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 14:34:20 -0400
Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org WG" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <22960987-B7C6-4BAD-B099-715A87898FCD@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

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.


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
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2012 18:34:51 UTC

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