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

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

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:46:36 -0500
Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7D29CFD5-9834-4FE0-8FAA-154FBBC0B5FD@rpi.edu>
To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>

On Feb 20, 2012, at 1:50 PM, James Cheney 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,

+1, I am probably guilty of dumping others comments into the ProvRDF, because I don't know which they go to. The comments in ProvRDF should get moved to ISSUES as we know what the problem is.

-Tim

> 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
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 03:47:12 GMT

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