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: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:21:25 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+=hbbcHUrGwPhmArkSUii5XXwWfA9VTPVVy+hJgcLfiz8zeCw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Luc,

This seems better indeed.

Tom


2013/3/25 Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

>
> Hi Tom,
>
> I would phrase it as follows:
>
> IF hadMember(d, e) and 'Dictionary' \in typeOf(d) THEN there exists a key
> k such that hadDictionaryMember(d, e, k)
>
> - "there exists a key" ... rather than an unknown key  (if fact it can be
> known!)
> - not write "k" but k : a key is a prov-dm literal.
>
> Luc
>
>
> On 03/22/2013 12:40 PM, Tom De Nies wrote:
>
> 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!)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>
>
Received on Monday, 25 March 2013 10:21:54 UTC

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