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

Re: PROV-DICTIONARY internal review for first public working draft (ISSUE-614)

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:11:24 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtnb-M+b_JtxrWVwC3Wj=YBxrOPxYi4iUXO2D=WRu0B63w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Forgot to respond to these:

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
<soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

>> - Are the constraints acceptable, or are they too loose/too strict?

They are almost perfect! This level of strictness is very appropriate
for this specialization of prov:Collections.


>> -- In particular, can the constraint "IF derivedByRemovalFrom(d2, d1,
>> {"k1"}) THEN hadDictionaryMember(d1, e1, "k1") " be dropped, or do you
>> strongly support it?

I would have liked for this to be in as it is quite a nice constraint
- but I can see supporting 'empty' removals is like a mirroring of
allowing 'overwriting inserts' - and so I'm OK with removing this
constraint. If had we kept it, there would also be a stronger case for
explicitly mentioning e1 in derivedByRemovalFrom.


-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 15:12:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:28 UTC