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

Re: PROV-O plan?

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:36:34 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|ae904130219911d9046ace4e83f64892o0BGab08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F0F0C12.8070000@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Deborah and Tim,

I think the proper way is to raise issues against the prov-dm document,
and we'll insert a note into the document. That approach allows readers 
to follow
email discussions associated with this issue.

As part of producing WD3, we will update all issues that are still open.

Luc

On 01/12/2012 04:20 PM, Deborah L. McGuinness wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Thursday, 12 January 2012 16:37:12 UTC

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