- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:49:45 +0000
- To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi, This relation is still legacy definition dating back from the time we had dictionary/collection. Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton Southampton SO17 1BJ United Kingdom On 18 Sep 2012, at 15:19, "Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker" <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: > PROV-ISSUE-557: why collectionMemberOf instead of hadMember? [XML Serialization] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/557 > > Raised by: Curt Tilmes > On product: XML Serialization > > I realize collectionMemberOf has extra capabilities over a straight hadMember translation (you can specify the 'complete' flag, and specify multiple members in one go), but could we not keep the "hadMember" name for that element even so? > > All the other XML schema fields have kept the same name for the PROV-N and PROV-XML concepts, it just seems a shame to replace hadMember with collectionMemberOf. > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2012 14:50:36 UTC