W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > April 2012

Re: actions related to collections

From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:52:42 +0100
Cc: <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <44C3723D-B285-4673-8913-7D03202F8130@inf.ed.ac.uk>
To: Curt Tilmes <Curt.Tilmes@nasa.gov>
I generally agree with this.  In fact, we could view the ability to represent provenance of collections defined in some other vocabulary as a yardstick for how generic/extensible PROV is.  Thus, if we have a specific proposal it could be an extended example in the best practices rather than part of the standard itself.


On Apr 19, 2012, at 3:48 PM, Curt Tilmes wrote:

> On 04/19/2012 10:35 AM, Curt Tilmes wrote:
>> Take what we have here, make it a Collection Provenance Model or
>> something like that, and propose it separately as a middle layer on
>> top of PROV, below all the "Provenance of XXX"s that will be needed
>> for various domains, but leave it out of PROV-DM.
> To clarify: I'm not questioning whether or not collections are
> important (they are) or whether or not we need standard ways of
> handling them (we do).
> I'm simply questioning whether PROV-DM is the right place to do that,
> and whether the complexity they add to the fundamental data model is
> worth the benefit of specifying them here.
> Curt

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2012 14:53:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:14 UTC