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

Re: Tim's approach on Involvement

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:18:53 -0500
Cc: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org Group" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <74B7A1F3-C0FE-4C76-9AAA-48051BCF8C8F@rpi.edu>
To: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>

On Feb 21, 2012, at 12:13 PM, Khalid Belhajjame wrote:

> On 21/02/2012 16:45, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Feb 21, 2012, at 7:08 AM, Daniel Garijo wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Khalid!
>>> 
>>> 2012/2/21 Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
>>> 
>>> Bundle: This construct does not exist in prov-dm W3. We need to replace it by RecordContainer, or Container.
>>> I think we should leave Bundle. Why add RecordContainer if we are going to replace it in the next version? 
>> 
>> +1 We know how it's going to change, so we can relax the "we're doing WD3 now" constraint.
> 
> Fine by me, as long as we are aware of it. The only thing I would suggest it to explicitly say this in the email that we send when requesting reviews from the rest of the working group to avoid getting the same feedback again.

Bundle _is_ in WD3 as a section title.

Which is why we have http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Bundle, which cites 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-dm-20120202/#record-Account

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Bundle states:

Note: we agreed to left this relationship out of the first alignement

and

This is being removed from WD4. Note: we agreed to left this relationship out of the first alignement



BTW, I'm expecting my mapping at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Account to survive regardless of its name.

-Tim



> 
> Thanks, khalid
>> 
>> -Tim
>> 
>> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2012 21:29:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:56 GMT