Re: PROV-ISSUE-253: misc issues with the ontology [mapping prov-dm <-> prov-o]

Luc, can we close this issue? I believe all points are addressed, but as I
don't understand the original request I would prefer if you check.

Any remaining issues, please report them separate as per James's
guidelines.
On Feb 21, 2012 6:37 AM, "Luc Moreau" <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi James
>
> No offence taken.
>
> I think we have to be flexible. In some cases, timeliness is important,
> and not all details can be worked out. So, just flagging (perceived)
> problems is important, and should be allowed.
>
> The mapping has proved to be a very effective tool to work out details.
>  Before reaching that stage, sometimes, a simple conversation between teams
> can really help. The tracker (and this product) can help conduct this
> conversation.
>
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton
> Southampton SO17 1BJ
> United Kingdom
>
> On 20 Feb 2012, at 18:51, "James Cheney" <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > Belatedly, sorry if my response was unnecessarily abrasive.  I read the
> issue email well after I wrote the email about guidelines for presenting
> issues on the mapping.
> >
> > My hope was that looking at the mapping makes it easier to both see and
> constructively discuss mismatches between the DM and ontology.
>  Nevertheless, many of the mismatches are things that can be handled by
> changing one of the products and then (if needed) updating the mapping, but
> can't be fixed just by changing the mapping.  The reason I wrote the
> guidelines was that I want to avoid having the mapping become a dumping
> ground for issues that really "belong" to other products, so that we can
> focus on issues that really need dialogue between PROV-DM and PROV-O
> authors/editors.
> >
> > My suggestion is to use the mapping product to discuss issues for which
> it isn't a priori clear whether the ontology or the DM needs to change, and
> "dispatch" other issues to the appropriate product.  I am happy to change
> the guidelines if you think my approach can be improved.  It seems that
> most of the issues you raised were really about the ontology, so I am happy
> with your response of re-raising against the ontology.
> >
> > --James
> >
> > On Feb 17, 2012, at 3:04 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> >
> >> Hi James,
> >>
> >> As I indicated in my preamble, I didn't know whether this issue had to
> be raised against the mapping product or not.
> >> I think many of the issues are about the ontology itself.
> >> I am afraid I read your email today, well after I raised the issue.
> >>
> >> My primary aim was timeliness since the owl ontology needs to be fully
> >> written before we can talk about alignment in any significant way.
> >>
> >> With hindsight, this should have been raised against the ontology,
> which I am doing now.
> >
> >
> > --
> > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> > Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
> >
>
>