Re: PROV-ISSUE-557: why collectionMemberOf instead of hadMember? [XML Serialization]

On Sep 28, 2012, at 3:10 AM, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> 
> Hi Stephan
> HadMember in prov-dm does not have a complete flag, nor an Id.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#dfn-hadmember
> 
> Should this become:
> 
>  <xs:complexType name="Membership">
>    <xs:sequence>
>      <xs:element name="collection" type="prov:EntityRef"/>
>      <xs:element name="entity"          type="prov:EntityRef" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
>    </xs:sequence>
>  </xs:complexType>
> 

This change makes sense to me.  I'll make the update.

> 
> Also, do we allow multiple entities?

I believe we have always allowed multiple entities in the XML serialization.  We may want to have a discussion of whether to keep doing this, but I believe it is a useful convenience for merging many hadMember assertions and I believe that it maps cleanly to the DM.

> 
> Finally, should this be HadMember rather than Membership like the other relations?

I named the complexType after the concept name from the DM http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#term-membership.

prov:hadMember is the element of documentElements that is used to reference an instantiation of the Membership complexType, so the terminology of the serialized xml should match PROV-N.

<prov:document xmlns:prov="http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#">
  <prov:entity prov:id="e0"/>
  <prov:entity prov:id="e1"/>
  <prov:entity prov:id="e2"/>

  <prov:entity prov:id="c">
    <prov:type>prov:Collection</prov:type>
  </prov:entity>

  <prov:hadMember>
    <prov:collection prov:ref="c"/>
    <prov:entity prov:ref="e0"/>
    <prov:entity prov:ref="e1"/>
    <prov:entity prov:ref="e2"/>
  </prov:hadMember>

</prov:document>

--Stephan

> 
> Luc
> 
> On 09/27/2012 04:39 PM, Stephan Zednik wrote:
>> I have updated the xml schema to align with PROV-DM terminology and updated xml serialization examples accordingly.
>> 
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/cb1e74b9ec29
>> 
>> and will now change the ISSUE status to PENDING REVIEW.
>> 
>> --Stephan
>> 
>> On Sep 27, 2012, at 9:27 AM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> -- 
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
> 
>