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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-645 (TomDN): Should we add a new constraint on EmptyCollection and Dictionary? [PROV-DICTIONARY]

From: Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:14:01 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+=hbbfaPT6_Wq2WV1-Aths1Zurj0EgcL4K9JJVjiEp6r8Q5vw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
No objections received, issue is now closed

Regards,
Tom


2013/3/22 Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>

> As mentioned in the issue, Sam and I are not in favor of adding a new
> constraint for this.
>
> Proposal to resolve this issue: Keep EmptyCollection and Dictionary
> unconstrained (Do not add a new constraint on EmptyCollection and
> Dictionary), because it would facilitate a way of specifying
> EmptyDictionary we should not encourage:
> i.e.
> entity(d, [prov:type="prov:Dictionary", prov:type="prov:EmptyCollection"])
> instead of
> entity(d, [prov:type="prov:EmptyDictionary")
>
> 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-645 (TomDN): Should we add a new constraint on EmptyCollection
>> and Dictionary? [PROV-DICTIONARY]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/645
>>
>> Raised by: Tom De Nies
>> On product: PROV-DICTIONARY
>>
>> Originally raised by Khalid, and agreed to discuss before the next
>> release.
>>
>> Khalid's email:
>> >Regarding prov:EmptyDictionary, I think there is anew constraint
>> >that can be added to state that an entity that is both a dictionary
>> >and an empty collection is an empty dictionary.
>>
>> My response:
>> I would be cautious to adding new constraints, especially with PROV-DM
>> constructs on the left-hand side.
>> Note that we have the reverse, in constraint D12.2. Technically, your
>> constraint is correct and doesn't break anything. I guess I just don't see
>> a use case where one would want to write:
>> entity(d, [prov:type="prov:Dictionary", prov:type="prov:EmptyCollection"])
>> instead of
>> entity(d, [prov:type="prov:EmptyDictionary")
>> This is, in my view, a way of specifying EmptyDictionary we should not
>> encourage.
>>
>>
>> I would like to ask the opinion of the group on this before we the final
>> release.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 28 March 2013 15:14:29 UTC

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