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

Re: Resources and state

From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 14:43:37 +0100
Message-ID: <4DE79389.4050708@ncl.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
James and all,

your thoughts I do agree with, and they lead me to the key points on which I hope we can agree:

- Personally I would be happy with a collection of models/definitions for "resource" and associated concepts, where each applies 
within its own scope, and without the expectation of coming up with universal definitions.

- we are not here to do research, however the specific research problems that our definitions entail should emerge from these 
discussions, and we should be aware of them, just as we should be aware of the scope within which "resource" is defined.

- standardising the process/mechanisms for extending a (core) provenance model is just as important as standardising the core 
itself. Are we going to address this?

Cheers, -Paolo


On 6/2/11 12:42 PM, James Cheney wrote:
> Hi all,
> <snip>
>
> So I would be inclined to to agree that we should avoid mission creep
> concerning resource state, and maybe go further: while recognizing the
> importance of dynamic state, versioning, containers, etc. for
> provenance, we should scope the model as narrowly as possible, and ask
> for each concept whether it is really something that needs to be
> standardized in order to provide minimal , and whether it is well-
> understood enough not to be a research problem.  For some of these, we
> might consider extensibility mechanisms (eg OPM-syle "profiles") to
> accommodate experimentation without presuming to standardize something
> prematurely.
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2011 13:44:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:31 GMT