W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > July 2011

Re: Access plan for next 3 months

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 19:01:27 +0200
Message-ID: <4E1C7DE7.5080107@vu.nl>
To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Graham,

We've asked for a W3C mercurial repository to be set up for the various 
draft documents. Hopefully, this will happen soon.

Thanks,
Paul

Graham Klyne wrote:
> Sandro,
>
> I have an action to move a document to the W3C site:
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/30
>
> The document is currently at
> http://imageweb.zoo.ox.ac.uk/pub/2011/provenance/ReSpec/provenance-access.html
>
> I'm very keen that the document should be managed via some SCM facility, which I
> believe W3C do use for document production.  If there's any choice, I'd prefer
> it be Mercurial or Git rather than SVN.
>
> Can you please advise (or provide link to advice) how I might proceed?
>
> Thanks.
>
> #g
> --
>
> Simon Miles wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> This is just to clarify the overall plan for the provenance access
>> work over the next 3 months, especially for those who were absent from
>> the F2F.
>>
>> * We are aiming for a single draft proposal regarding some aspects of
>> access ready for month 6 (3 months from now), to accompany the
>> required model deliverables [1].
>>
>> * We will iterate over and raise issues with a single document with
>> one consistent view (as opposed to a list of competing proposals).
>> This will evolve into the draft proposal.
>>
>> * As Graham has already produced such a starting document, we decided
>> to begin from that and asked him to move it to the Wiki [2].
>>
>> * Once transferred to the Wiki, we will raise issues with the
>> proposal, e.g. where important cases are not adequately covered, using
>> the issue tracker. Issues regarding inadequacy should, ideally,
>> explain where it does not cover what is required by reference to the
>> scenario we defined in the F2F1 [3]. Tim has kindly elaborated this
>> with data relating to the journalism example.
>>
>> * In particular, it would be good for those who made proposals in the
>> F2F1 document, to raise issues which illustrate the salient
>> differences of their proposal with the current draft [4].
>>
>> If you have any comments on this plan, please raise them by email.
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Deliverables
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/30
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario
>> [4] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1_Access_and_Query_Proposal
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Simon
>>
>
>

-- 
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
VU University Amsterdam
Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2011 17:02:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:37 GMT