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

Re: proposal: drop 'formal model' terminology

From: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 10:46:53 +0100
Message-ID: <4E88330D.10003@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
CC: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On 30/09/2011 12:29, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> The charter [1] lists deliverables D1 'conceptual model' and D2  
> 'formal model'.
>
> For the former, we moved away from the 'conceptual model' terminology, 
> and we refer to a data model PROV-DM.
>
> For the latter, we seem to have endless confusion about what it really 
> means, and what the difference is with
> semantics.   Also, as Graham pointed out, it is not obvious why a 
> developer would have to look at a formal model
> document.
>
> 1. Given this confusion, Paul and I would like to propose that we drop 
> the terminology 'Formal Model'.
>    Can you express your support or disagreement for this proposal?

I would support this. To Be honest, I was never conformable with the 
title "Formal model".
Also, I think that PROV-ASN in the conceptual model gives enough crisp 
details to understand the model for people who wants to know more.
>
> 2. Assuming we adopt the proposal, what should the document title 
> become, we leave it to authors/editors to decide.
>    Group members may also want to make suggestions, and we could vote 
> on them during teleconference.
>
>    To get the ball rolling: 'semantic web 
> representation/model/serialization of provenance'

Provenance Ontology, or Provenance OWL Ontology, given that so far we 
focused on OWL.

Thanks, khalid

>
> Cheers,
> Luc
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/01/prov-wg-charter
>
>
Received on Sunday, 2 October 2011 09:47:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:43 GMT