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

Re: [provo] Proposal for a Structure of the PROVO HTML Document

From: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:51:58 +0000
Message-ID: <4F54EF2E.7020804@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
CC: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org, Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
On 05/03/2012 16:45, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> Khalid,
>
> You mentioned that the section 8 diagram needs improvement.
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Qualifed_Involvements_in_PROV-O#Qualified_Usage
>
> has a diagram that shows the parallel between the unqualified and the qualified.
> Perhaps you could consider a diagram like this.

That certainly looks much better that what we have in Section 8. One 
option would be to use one or two diagrams from

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Qualifed_Involvements_in_PROV-O#Qualified_Usage

for example QualifiedUsage and QualifiedGeneration (The example will 
help us choose which one, and one diagram illustrating the hierarchy of 
involvement that we have.

Thanks, khalid

>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> On Mar 5, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
>> Hi Khalid,
>>
>> For information, Paolo and I have decided to restructure prov-dm (WD5) as follows,
>> in several components. The intent was to address Jun's comment on core vs common.
>>
>> - Activity, Entity, Events
>>
>> - Agency and Responsibility
>>
>> - Derivations
>>    wasDerivedFrom, revision, quotation, original sources
>> - Alternate relations (title to be defined)
>>      Alternate, Specialization
>> - Annotation
>> - Collections
>>
>> So, in other words, we'll drop the common/core. It would be good if it was not used in the prov-o.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Luc
>
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 16:52:23 GMT

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