- From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:23:43 -0600
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I believe Luc is correct, this is a legacy name from when we had both dictionaryMemberOf and collectionMemberOf. I will make the change to memberOf. --Stephan On Sep 18, 2012, at 8:49 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > 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 Thursday, 27 September 2012 15:24:16 UTC