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

Re: prov-wg: agenda Mar. 1, 2012

From: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 10:03:35 -0500
Message-Id: <3F4E7163-F3DF-4A97-BF83-8118EFEDA98A@openlinksw.com>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org

On Feb 29, 2012, at 04:27 PM, Paul Groth wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> The agenda for tomorrow's telecon is at:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.03.01
> 
> Note: there is a proposal in the agenda that we would like to vote on tomorrow. Due to time constraints, we ask that any objections to the proposal be raised before the telecon. This proposal has been in the agenda for several weeks so we don't think it should be of concern.

I'm sorry; I see no proposal in the agenda linked above.

It is often helpful to include the agenda content in any 
message pointing to its web page.

It is also helpful to include relevant snippets of important
text (with or without fragment-identified URIs) when they are
being called out from external documents.

I'm guessing the proposal is the breakup of PROV-DM into the
three component docs; in which case I am fully in support.


On a separate topic, within the Agenda --
>  Introduce the idea of an upgrade path, where the new reader is not required to learn about all the details of attributes, intervals, events, constraints to write simple provenance (informally referred to  as Scruffy Provenance)

The sooner we can move away from any reference to "Scruffy 
Provenance," (even as used here!) the better.

I suggest we adopt terms similar to those used in other standards,
i.e., "Core"/"Advanced"/"Full" (ODBC); "Core"/"Packages" (SQL);
"OWL Lite"/"OWL DL"/"OWL FULL" (OWL)...

I suggest labels like "Simple" and "Detailed", where the latter
may include any of the detailed attribute categories (but does 
not require that all be present/used/understood).  

If need be, "Detailed" could be further divided (as "OWL 2 DL" 
has subsets "OWL 2 EL"/"OWL 2 QL"/"OWL 2 RL").  "Simple with
xyz" could be used to say what additional attributes are in
any given Provenance Document, but all "Simple with xyz" could
equally be called "Detailed"...

Regards,

Ted




--
A: Yes.                      http://www.guckes.net/faq/attribution.html
| Q: Are you sure?
| | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
| | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

Ted Thibodeau, Jr.           //               voice +1-781-273-0900 x32
Evangelism & Support         //        mailto:tthibodeau@openlinksw.com
                             //              http://twitter.com/TallTed
OpenLink Software, Inc.      //              http://www.openlinksw.com/
         10 Burlington Mall Road, Suite 265, Burlington MA 01803
     Weblog   -- http://www.openlinksw.com/blogs/
     LinkedIn -- http://www.linkedin.com/company/openlink-software/
     Twitter  -- http://twitter.com/OpenLink
     Google+  -- http://plus.google.com/100570109519069333827/
     Facebook -- http://www.facebook.com/OpenLinkSoftware
Universal Data Access, Integration, and Management Technology Providers







Received on Thursday, 1 March 2012 15:04:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:58 GMT