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

Re: prov:Dictionary example - without the specs

From: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:49:53 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAtgn=QnPe869RfVM9Aw6q0ftAm-J05Ojc88gWipEtzG_NhRgw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org WG" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Collection.contains() is an invariant method and doesn't assert anything
about the collection in question.

hadMember is an assertion about that collection that models the state of
the collection.

Jim

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> 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).
>
> 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
>
>
>


-- 
Jim McCusker
Programmer Analyst
Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
Yale School of Medicine
james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330
http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
mccusj@cs.rpi.edu
http://tw.rpi.edu
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2012 20:50:45 UTC

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