- From: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 11:02:42 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
PROV-ISSUE-643 (TomDN): Include additional constraint hadMember implies hadDictionaryMember with unknown key [PROV-DICTIONARY] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/643 Raised by: Tom De Nies On product: PROV-DICTIONARY Originally raised by Stian in his review, but agreed to postpone to next draft. Should we add the following constraint? IF hadMember(d, e) and 'Dictionary' \in typeOf(d) THEN hadDictionaryMember(d, e, "k") with k and unknown key. In Stian's original email: Also I don't quite understand this. So a prov:Dictionary kind of collection can have members that don't have keys? entity(d, [prov:type='prov:Dictionary' ]) // implies: entity(d, [prov:type='prov:Collection ]) hadDictionaryMember(d, e1, "k1") // implies: hadMember(d, e1) // But what if we also see? hadMember(d, e3) // are you saying this would NOT imply the below? hadDictionaryMember(d, e3, ?unknownKey) If so then I am a bit confused - a prov:Dictionary to be useful should be a constrained prov:Collection in which every member is associated with a key. This should be added to the Conceptual Definition of Dictionary above. If there is no such implication (of course the key is unknown until stated otherwise), I am not sure in which cases such a data type could be useful. It would be like describing an array type of collection, but where some items are allowed to not have a position. (which is quite different from saying they have an unknown position!)
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2013 11:02:47 UTC