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

Re: PROV-O plan?

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:40:33 +0100
Message-ID: <CAExK0DeWwmpo6EcPes1PMLXbbA8aqev8u_x-vZQ2eT=2b9QbnQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Tim,
my impression is that Stian noted that down because we were spending more
time arguing about
the DM than commiting to align both documents, which is what we to achieve.

Imo, discussing about DM is something that is going to happen during the
alignement, and it is something
necessary. However once we have detected the issue there is no point on
discussing it entirely ourselves,
we should raise a formal issue and keep on with the rest of the list. That
is why I gave it a +1.

Thanks,
Daniel

2012/1/9 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>

> PROV-O (via prov-wg),
>
> I apologize for leaving before we finished today's telecon [1].
>
> As I look through the notes, I'm concerned about the statement:
>
> "+1 to focus more on ontology first - avoid wasted time on writing lots of
> documentation we then disagree on :) +1 (Daniel)"
>
>
> I'm concerned that focusing on "just" some OWL assertions will inhibit our
> progress.
> It is easier to agree upon things that are written down, with examples,
> and described from the perspectives of PROV-DM, RDF, and OWL.
> Any addition to the PROV-O ontology needs some discussion accompanying it,
> so that the PROV-O team (and others) can be convinced that it is a proper
> model.
>
> For example, the qualified involvements proposal [2] seemed to catalyze
> the use of QualifiedInvolvements by prov-wg.
> After months of discussions, it unified the two competing approaches that
> were never written down.
> Unfortunately, no form of [2] is part of the official PROV-O discussion
> document [3].
>
> The Accounts proposal [4] hasn't been as catalyzing, but at least we can
> monitor its progress.
>
> As for concrete examples, [5] has not seen any prov-wg adoption for
> collecting PROV-O examples in our hg repository [6].
>
> Further, when it _does_ come to the OWL assertions, my attempt to
> decompose the problem into smaller, manageable, ACTION-able pieces [6,7]
> has also been disregarded in favor of the traditional monolith [8] that
> nobody seems to want to touch.
>
>
> Since I've exhausted my approaches to contributing, I'm left with nothing
> but a question:
>
>       How do you want me to help make progress?
>
> Thanks,
> Tim Lebo
>
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2012-01-09#9._prov:steps_property_.28to_qualify_derivations.29_is_missing
> .
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Qualifed_Involvements_in_PROV-O
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-o-20111213/
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Using_graphs_to_model_Accounts
> [5] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PROV_OWL_ontology_component_examples
> [6] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/ontology/components
> [7] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PROV_OWL_ontology_components
> [8]
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl
>
Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2012 10:41:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:11 UTC