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

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

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 19:17:33 -0500
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <4FF39990-12B7-46A3-9649-E6A93282BC95@rpi.edu>
To: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
> 
> 
> 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).  


This is certainly better than the current terminology (which won't be repeated here ;-)

> 
> 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
Received on Friday, 2 March 2012 00:18:07 GMT

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