- From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:39:40 -0600
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I have updated the xml schema to align with PROV-DM terminology and updated xml serialization examples accordingly. https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/cb1e74b9ec29 and will now change the ISSUE status to PENDING REVIEW. --Stephan On Sep 27, 2012, at 9:27 AM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote: > Correction, I will rename collectionMemberOf to hadMember. > > --Stephan > > On Sep 27, 2012, at 9:23 AM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote: > >> I believe Luc is correct, this is a legacy name from when we had both dictionaryMemberOf and collectionMemberOf. >> >> I will make the change to memberOf. >> >> --Stephan >> >> On Sep 18, 2012, at 8:49 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> This relation is still legacy definition dating back from the time we had dictionary/collection. >>> >>> Professor Luc Moreau >>> Electronics and Computer Science >>> University of Southampton >>> Southampton SO17 1BJ >>> United Kingdom >>> >>> On 18 Sep 2012, at 15:19, "Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker" <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: >>> >>>> PROV-ISSUE-557: why collectionMemberOf instead of hadMember? [XML Serialization] >>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/557 >>>> >>>> Raised by: Curt Tilmes >>>> On product: XML Serialization >>>> >>>> I realize collectionMemberOf has extra capabilities over a straight hadMember translation (you can specify the 'complete' flag, and specify multiple members in one go), but could we not keep the "hadMember" name for that element even so? >>>> >>>> All the other XML schema fields have kept the same name for the PROV-N and PROV-XML concepts, it just seems a shame to replace hadMember with collectionMemberOf. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > >
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 15:40:10 UTC