- From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:08:05 +0000
- 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 UTC