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

Re: PROPOSALS TO VOTE ON (deadline: Wednesday 14th, midnight GMT)

From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:08:05 +0000
Message-ID: <4F60EC95.5070406@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On 09/03/2012 14:41, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Find three proposals to vote on. They are intended to simplify the data model.
> The proposals are related to ISSUE-207 (start/end), ISSUE-206, and ISSUE-204(end
> of entity).
>
> If you have issues with them, please raise them promptly, since we are keen to
> have these
> resolved by the next teleconference on Thursday.
>
> They all appear in
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-misc.html
>
>
> Please express your vote for each proposal separately:
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-misc.html#proposal1

+0

> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-misc.html#proposal2

+0

> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-misc.html#proposal3

+0.5

The lukewarm response here is because I don't have any visibility of 
applications that actually require these features.  It smells a little of 
ontologizing for the sake of ontologizing, but I lack any specific reason to 
oppose the proposals.

Proposal3 looks sensible as stated; i.e. to separate out facets of an existing 
overloaded concept, but it only rates +0.5 for the reason stated above.

#g
--
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 19:16:31 GMT

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