W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-comments@w3.org > September 2012

Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Small, scruffy provenance profile?]]

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 20:38:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRrL8qQFJMru1vr6YVysxsGvmkMEWc130FPOMQZ_mz-LbA@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Cc: "public-prov-comments@w3.org" <public-prov-comments@w3.org>
Hi David,

Actually, the primer is a the place to start  - check out
http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-primer/

Maybe, you can give some feedback on how we can improve the primer if it's
not what you're looking for.

Again thanks for interacting with the working group and your interest in
prov.

regards
Paul



On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:16 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
> Jim McCusker emailed me privately, and I responded:
> [[
> On Thu, 2012-09-27 at 12:28 -0400, David Booth wrote:
> > Hi Jim,
> >
> > I had not looked at the PROV-O document.  I was assuming that an
> > ontology spec would get into the details, and the primer would be a
> > better starting point.  I like the "PROV-O at a glance" section:
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#prov-o-at-a-glance
> > That would serve as an excellent roadmap for a tutorial.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David
>
> P.S. In looking further, I see that section 3 is organized that way:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#description
> and does provide some tutorial-like material.  I guess I expected PROV-O
> to be reference material, rather than tutorial.  So now I'm confused:
> why is primer material both in the primer and in PROV-O?
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>
> On Thu, 2012-09-27 at 19:01 +0200, Paul Groth wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> >
> > Thanks for your comment. We are really sorry that the comment didn't
> > come through and there was an error in the document.
> >
> > I was wondering if your comment still applies? If you look at prov-o,
> > you'll see
> > section http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#description-starting-point-terms
> >
> >
> > This defines a core of provenance and everything else is bonus.
> >
> >
> > Do you think pointing this out in a FAQ would help?
> >
> >
> > or do you want something that breaks this out even more.
> >
> >
> > regards
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 5:33 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> >         [This is my THIRD attempt to send these comments to the prov
> >         working
> >         group.  The primer at http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-primer/ says
> >         to send
> >         comments to public-prov-wg@w3.org , but since that has not
> >         worked I'm
> >         now trying public-prov-wg@w3.org ]
> >
> >         -------- Forwarded Message --------
> >         From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
> >         To: public-prov-wg <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
> >         Subject: [Fwd: Small, scruffy provenance profile?]
> >         Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 12:01:09 -0400
> >
> >         FYI, this is a comment that I sent to the working group last
> >         February,
> >         though apparently it never got there, as I don't see it in the
> >         archives.
> >         I'm not sure that it makes sense now -- seven months later --
> >         to
> >         consider this as an actual request, since the working group is
> >         much
> >         farther along now, but I think it is still worth reading.  The
> >         primer at
> >         http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-primer-20120724/
> >         is definitely a good step in this direction.  Thanks!
> >
> >         -------- Forwarded Message --------
> >         From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
> >         To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> >         Subject: Small, scruffy provenance profile?
> >         Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:01:49 -0500
> >
> >         I find myself intimidated by the size and complexity of the
> >         current
> >         provenance work -- to the point that I am tempted to invent my
> >         own small
> >         ontology instead, which would be very unfortunate.
> >
> >         Could we please have a small, scruffy provenance profile that
> >         could be
> >         used in the many situations where great detail and precise
> >         semantics are
> >         not needed?  I'm sure the existing detail and precision are
> >         important to
> >         some applications.  I appreciate the effort involved in
> >         figuring them
> >         out, and I'm not suggesting discarding this work.  But a small
> >         profile
> >         might allow both needs to be addressed.
> >
> >         As a comparative example, the big success of SKOS is due to
> >         its
> >         simplicity: it is un-intimidating.  It can be used by the
> >         masses for
> >         lots of simple things.  (And as Jim Hendler famously said, "A
> >         little bit
> >         of semantics goes a long way".)
> >
> >         So . . . how about a small, simple profile that does not
> >         require a
> >         tutorial, does not require learning a new abstract syntax or
> >         data model,
> >         and does not require the user to study its formal semantics
> >         (for fear of
> >         using it wrong)?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >         --
> >         David Booth, Ph.D.
> >         http://dbooth.org/
> >
> >         Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not
> >         necessarily
> >         reflect those of his employer.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> David Booth, Ph.D.
> http://dbooth.org/
>
> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
> reflect those of his employer.
>
>


-- 
--
Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
Assistant Professor
- Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group |
  Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
- The Network Institute
VU University Amsterdam
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 18:39:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 27 September 2012 18:39:08 GMT