- From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:27:59 -0600
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Correction, I will rename collectionMemberOf to hadMember. --Stephan On Sep 27, 2012, at 9:23 AM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote: > 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 15:28:37 UTC