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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-120 (Tlebo): Renaming Formal Model (The OWL) [Formal Model]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 10:25:42 -0400
Message-Id: <7F200A66-2749-4BEC-92BD-DA60A83E0EC3@rpi.edu>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I suggest we reuse 

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/NameSuggestions

to collect a list of proposals for the new "Formal".

Regards,
Tim



On Oct 6, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:

> 
> PROV-ISSUE-120 (Tlebo): Renaming Formal Model (The OWL) [Formal Model]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/120
> 
> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
> On product: Formal Model
> 
> Formal issue based on Luc's email:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Sep/0338.html
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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'
> 
> Cheers,
> Luc
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/01/prov-wg-charter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 7 October 2011 14:26:11 GMT

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