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

Re: PROV-O plan?

From: Deborah L. McGuinness <dlm@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:20:54 -0500
Message-ID: <4F0F0866.3090608@cs.rpi.edu>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On 1/12/2012 10:06 AM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> Thank you for filling in some of the discussion around the note.
>
> I agree that we need to focus on aligning the documents.
> Further, I don't think the PROV-O meetings are the right place to 
> complain about the DM. That should be done separately via the tracker 
> and email list.
>
>
>
> My question to the group is what process we should be using to make 
> observable progress on the alignment?
>
>
>
> Paolo and Luc,
>
> I wonder if we could add pointers to PROV-O HTML sections from 
> directly within the PROV-DM sections.
> This would certainly assist the alignment, and give a straightforward 
> TODO list for the PROV-O team.
+1 to this suggestion.
As a data point, this mode was used quite heavily in the first round of 
the OWL documentation - in particular with the overview and reference 
manual and many commented on how useful it was.

>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 10, 2012, at 5:40 AM, Daniel Garijo wrote:
>
>> 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 <mailto: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 Thursday, 12 January 2012 16:21:46 UTC

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