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

Re: Personal observations of working group style and process

From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:52:30 +0100
Message-ID: <4E0328FE.20505@ncl.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org

ok, but please don't forget that we did have a confcall discussion on the interplay of model and architecture, and the agreement was 
that the two should be kept separate at this stage
(see http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-06-02)

is that still the case?


On 6/23/11 11:18 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> Your question helped me to recognize a slight ambiguity in my position.
> The ambiguity in my position was that the reference to "agile" possibly implies
> defining a solution for a "tiny case", as you suggest.  What I really wish to
> target is a "tiny solution" to cover a range of easy cases.  My intuition here
> is that rather than starting our work independently from web architecture
> considerations, we can be guided by them (the Web being the most highly scaled
> distributed system ever), and then use our scenarios to uncover any shortcomings
> in those solutions.  (This applies mainly to PAQ;  the provenance *model* needs
> to be squarely based on scenario requirements, but I'd still suggest an approach
> of starting with a simple core that can cover common cases, then see how it can
> be developed to cope with more complex requirements.)
> #g
> --
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2011 11:53:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:05 UTC