Re: prov:Dictionary example - without the specs

I believe that accurately reflects what I was suggesting, and I think it has value, but before I go any further with that suggestion I would like to get back to the topic Tim originally raised.

I am also aware that the suggested membership relation in PROV-O and the idea I just suggested are different, with the previous suggesting casting the KeyValuePair as the entity constituent of a dictionary.

I see benefits to both approaches.

What are the thoughts on a general membership relation (range entity) that can be used in a dictionary to declaratively state that either a KeyValuePair or the value of a KeyValuePair is a member of the dictionary?

The idea being this relation could be utilized to assert members in other specializations of prov:Collection not defined by the WG and would be aligned with the current phrasing of 'member of' in the DM.

Is a generalized collection membership relation something we are just unwilling to to commit to?

If we are willing to try it, are either of these options palatable?

--Stephan

On Jun 7, 2012, at 5:18 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi Stephan
> 
> So would
> memberOf(c,{e1 ... en})
> address your needs?
> 
> with the understanding that in the context of a dictionary,
> this means that there are some keys such that
> 
> memberOf(c,{(k1,e1) ... (kn,en)})
> 
> 
> Luc
> 
> On 07/06/12 22:43, Stephan Zednik wrote:
>> Apologies, correcting typo from poor editing.
>> 
>> --Stephan
>> 
>> On Jun 7, 2012, at 5:26 PM, Stephan Zednik<zednis@rpi.edu>  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> It aligns dictionary with our definition of entity,
>>> 
>> It aligns dictionary with our definition from the DM (where members are indexed by keys).
>> 
>> I read this as entities are indexed by keys rather than key-value pairs are indexed by keys, since I see key-value pairs as structural rather than conceptual resources.
>> 
>> --Stephan
>

Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 00:37:45 UTC