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: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:39:36 -0400
Cc: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org WG" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <036D523B-CE02-4A10-BD0F-D9BC53F76F7C@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On Jun 7, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> 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). 

I would not use the java Collection interface as a reference.

Methods on inserting/removing/testing membership of a collection are different than a vocabulary which would be used to declaratively describe collection (container?) membership.

For example, the Java collection's containsValue method has very different meaning than declaratively asserting membership.

A more relevant reference would be the existing rdf container and collection properties:

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/#containers (rdf:Bag, rdf:Seq, rdf:Alt)
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/#collections (rdf:List)

> 
> 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?

No, because containsValue is not a relation, but a method that tests if a value is currently present in a given Map.  This is not a declarative statement and would map to a query.

--Stephan

> 
> 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 20:40:28 UTC

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