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

Re: closing old collection issues

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:20:31 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPRnXt=C8WPTWE-Fkh4idMFwRp-NaRLskp0B6fcfbo6qUQRSXg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 14:52, Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
> I am proposing to close very old issues that had been left pending (my
> fault) and that come from you. It seems to me they have all been superseded
> by recent versions, incl. today's.

They are old, but some of them are still not addressed.

> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/135
"Collection relations have confusing names"


> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/136

"Collection not stated as functional"

The description on
still does not say that these are functional, but that is the
intention you are giving in these email - ie.

I can't do:

 derivedByInsertionFrom(c1, c,  {("k1", e1), ("k2", e2)})
 derivedByInsertionFrom(c1, c,  {("k3", e3), ("k4", e4)})


 derivedByInsertionFrom(c1, c,  {("k1", e1), ("k2", e2)})
 derivedByInsertionFrom(c1, c2,  {("k1", e1), ("k2", e2)})


  derivedByRemovalFrom(c3, c2, {k1, k3})
  derivedByRemovalFrom(c3, c2, {k2, k4})


 derivedByInsertionFrom(c1, c,  {("k1", e1), ("k2", e2)})
 derivedByRemovalFrom(c1, c, {k1, k3})


This constraint should as a minimum be listed in the now empty section at:

It should probably also show the inferred wasDerivedFrom statement(s).

> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/137

"Collection assertions does not guarantee isolation"

This will be covered by the  last bullet point:

> The representation of a collection through these relations makes no assumption regarding the underlying data structure used to store and manage collections. In particular, no assumptions are needed regarding the mutability of a data structure that is subject to updates. Entities, however, are immutable and this applies to those entities that represent collections. This is reflected in the constraints listed in Part II.

.. given that those constraints are listed in Part II.

I'll leave it open until that is the case.

> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/138

"Collection does not describe multiple additions/replacements"


Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2012 10:21:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:10 UTC