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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-643 (TomDN): Include additional constraint hadMember implies hadDictionaryMember with unknown key [PROV-DICTIONARY]

From: Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:40:37 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+=hbbcyscH6HEVm9NkepOOoV6f741m1y0TijAYn6ZgoHfqx4w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
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-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 Friday, 22 March 2013 12:41:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:32 UTC