Re: Membership should be unqualified (Re: PROV-ISSUE-444 (prov-o-to-last-call): Review PROV-O for last call [PROV-O HTML]) from Stian Soiland-Reyes on 2012-07-12 (public-prov-wg@w3.org from July 2012)

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:48:32 +0100
To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtn7rNs+fWnEdgJbV1WBv5QKhFO5wPbXK+L0ehoPHyZjPA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> Question: do we keep EmptyCollection?

With a binary member relation and no completeness, there would be no
other way to describe an empty collection. (before you could say
hadMembers(c, {}) ). We then only allow characterising collections
with 1 members or more, which is a bit odd.

I say keep. In almost all collection systems, the empty collection is a prime.


-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester

Received on Thursday, 12 July 2012 09:49:23 UTC