ISSUE-557: why collectionMemberOf instead of hadMember?

why collectionMemberOf instead of hadMember?

State:

CLOSED

Product:

XML Serialization

Raised by:

Curt Tilmes

Opened on:

2012-09-18

Description:

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.

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Re: PROV-ISSUE-557: why collectionMemberOf instead of hadMember? [XML Serialization] (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-09-29)
2. Re: PROV-ISSUE-557: why collectionMemberOf instead of hadMember? [XML Serialization] (from zednis@rpi.edu on 2012-09-28)
3. Re: PROV-ISSUE-557: why collectionMemberOf instead of hadMember? [XML Serialization] (from zednis@rpi.edu on 2012-09-28)
4. Re: PROV-ISSUE-557: why collectionMemberOf instead of hadMember? [XML Serialization] (from l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-09-28)
5. Re: PROV-ISSUE-557: why collectionMemberOf instead of hadMember? [XML Serialization] (from zednis@rpi.edu on 2012-09-27)
6. Re: PROV-ISSUE-557: why collectionMemberOf instead of hadMember? [XML Serialization] (from zednis@rpi.edu on 2012-09-27)
7. Re: PROV-ISSUE-557: why collectionMemberOf instead of hadMember? [XML Serialization] (from zednis@rpi.edu on 2012-09-27)
8. Re: PROV-ISSUE-557: why collectionMemberOf instead of hadMember? [XML Serialization] (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-09-18)
9. PROV-ISSUE-557: why collectionMemberOf instead of hadMember? [XML Serialization] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-09-18)

Related notes:

Display change log