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

Re: Kickstarting the Provenance Access and Query Task Force

From: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 19:30:52 +0100
Message-ID: <4DD4105C.6070902@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org

Hi,

I think it is a good idea to start from the work done by the incubator 
rather than starting from scratch.
So, I agree with Olaf's idea.

In the case that this is accepted by other members, I would like to draw 
the attention to the following point.
The focus in Section 6 [1] seems to be on how the representation of a 
web resource obtained via HTTP can be enriched with provenance 
information about that resource.
While useful, I was wondering whether other kind of queries, that are 
about provenance, could be supported, or whether they are outside the 
scope of the PAQ TF.
An example query could be, "did resource r1 contribute to the content of 
resource r2?"

Thanks, khalid

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/XGR-prov/



On 18/05/2011 05:49, Olaf Hartig wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In our last telecon we agreed on a list of objectives for the F2F meeting [1].
> According to that list the Provenance Access and Query Task Force (PAQ TF)
> will discuss a draft on how provenance fits in the Web architecture.
> The PAQ TF should start working on this draft as soon as possible (in parallel
> to the work done in the Model TF). To kickstart this activity I would like to
> bring up the following two proposals:
>
> Proposal 1: The final report [2] of the W3C provenance incubator group contains
> a section on "Provenance in Web Architecture", Sec.6. The PAQ TF uses this
> section as foundation for the draft that we want to have for the F2F meeting.
> By "foundation" I mean as a first incomplete (and inofficial) draft.
>
> If we agree on Proposal 1, then we may decide about:
>
> Proposal 2: To initiate the development of Sec.6 [2] into the draft that we
> want to have for the F2F meeting, the PAQ TF performs the following four
> actions:
>
> 2.a) identify key terms in the overview section (Sec.6.1 [6]) and provide
> references to definitions of these terms (preferably referring to W3C
> documents)
>
> 2.b) exemplify the different options mentioned in Sec.6 [2] using the data
> journalism example [3]
>
> 2.c) brainstorm and discuss additional pros and cons for the different options
> mentioned in Sec.6 [2]
>
> 2.d) brainstorm and discuss additional options that are not mentioned in
> Sec.6 [2] (if there are any)
>
>
> Greetings,
> Olaf
>
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011May/0017.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/XGR-prov/
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceExample
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 18:31:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:29 GMT