Re: PROV-ISSUE-639 (TomDN): Notation of hadDictionaryMember [PROV-DICTIONARY]

Thanks Paolo, so are the editors.

Our proposal to resolve this issue is to keep the current notation. 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 Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>

> Hi,
>
> I am used to finding keys or key-valu pairs in the third position, which I
> think is generally the case, so I am happy with the
> current notation
>
> --Paolo
>
>
> On 07/03/2013 10:47, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> > PROV-ISSUE-639 (TomDN): Notation of hadDictionaryMember [PROV-DICTIONARY]
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/639
> >
> > Raised by: Tom De Nies
> > On product: PROV-DICTIONARY
> >
> > Originally raised by Luc in his review, but agreed to discuss this for
> the next draft.
> >
> > In the notation hadDictionaryMember(d, e0, "k0"), key follows entity,
> whereas it precedes in derivedByInsertionFrom(d2, d1, {("k1", e3)}). Should
> this be made uniform? Is it worth the extra effort?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> -----------  ~oo~  --------------
> Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org
> School of Computing Science, Newcastle University,  UK
> http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
> PGP Public key: 0x45596549  - key servers: pool.sks-keyservers.net
>
>
>