W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > April 2013

Re: PROV-ISSUE-642 (TomDN): Include example of provenance of a dictionary in the document [PROV-DICTIONARY]

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:39:16 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRoCBOV1xePh28JqAoug1cZqogpu4Hh6XZ0vnMB98x8yDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Tom,

I think that would be better (you could put ...) in the example and then
refer to the full data file elsewhere

Paul


On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be> wrote:

>  True, but that would limit the example to the use of
> wasDerivedByInsertionFrom, as all the keys of the starting lineup are the
> same.
> Technically, I could only show the players that are inserted into the 2012
> roster, and remove all the hadDictionaryMember statements for
> ex:2011_roster. This would still be valid, but less complete. We could
> always do this in the document, and then refer to the full provenance in an
> external file.
>
> - Tom
>
>
> 2013/4/15 Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
>
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>>  I like the example, but I wonder why you need to list all the players?
>> Why not just list the starting line-up this would reduce the number of
>> players you need to list.
>>
>>  cool stuff,
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>  On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>wrote:
>>
>>>  Hi Paul, all,
>>>
>>> In the latest draft of PROV-Dictionary, we've included a real-world
>>> example of a dictionary and its provenance.
>>>
>>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dictionary/Overview.html#example
>>>
>>> Could you share your thoughts on this?
>>> Our only concern right now is that it is a bit long. Would you consider
>>> this a problem?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>
>>>  2013/3/22 Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>
>>>
>>>> my apologies, this was for a different issue. Please ignore the
>>>> previous email.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2013/3/22 Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>
>>>>
>>>>> The editors agree with this comment.
>>>>>
>>>>> The proposed resolution is to add the constraint
>>>>> IF hadMember(d, e) and 'Dictionary' \in typeOf(d) THEN
>>>>> hadDictionaryMember(d, e, "k") with k and unknown key
>>>>> to PROV-Dictionary.
>>>>>
>>>>> If any members of the WG have an objection to this, we ask kindly to
>>>>> inform us by replying to this email. If no objections are received before
>>>>> Tuesday March 26th, we will assume this resolution is accepted,
>>>>>
>>>>> - Tom
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2013/3/7 Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-642 (TomDN): Include example of provenance of a dictionary
>>>>>> in the document [PROV-DICTIONARY]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/642
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Raised by: Tom De Nies
>>>>>> On product: PROV-DICTIONARY
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Originally raised by Paul, who would like to see a small example of
>>>>>> the provenance of a dictionary in the document to illustrate the spec. We
>>>>>> should do this by the final release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
>> Assistant Professor
>> - Web & Media Group | Department of Computer Science
>> - The Network Institute
>> VU University Amsterdam
>>
>
>


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
Assistant Professor
- Web & Media Group | Department of Computer Science
- The Network Institute
VU University Amsterdam
Received on Monday, 15 April 2013 11:39:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:35 UTC