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

Re: prov:Dictionary example - without the specs

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 21:22:50 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|7188857a84fdcafd616009ad3b02f2e4o56LMs08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4FD10D9A.9010609@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org WG" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Tim,

I don't think we have tried to define a membership relation over dictionary,
which could work for any collection.

I don't know how to make a relation such as the one you suggest work
with the current dictionary definition.

If you look at the specification of the Java Collection interface [1], 
it has a contains method
(similar to your Collection.hadMember).

However,  the Map interface [2] does not have this method, instead it 
has containsKey and
containsValue.

So, are you suggesting an equivalent to containsValue relation?

Luc

[1] http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.4.2/docs/api/java/util/Collection.html
[2] http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.4.2/docs/api/java/util/Map.html


On 07/06/2012 19:34, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> 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
>
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2012 20:23:25 UTC

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