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

Re: Complexity/simplicty redux

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 13:01:06 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRo8iZM9X=D6wbkgOg4_TW+c28aHdfQ0tC+xvPLmSWUK_w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Graham,

Don't we do something simliar with starting points in both prov-o and
prov-dm? I don't really see how what we have is more complicated. We
have what is considered a base and then we build off that. The group
had concerns about calling some things "core" and "not core". That's
why we use starting points.

It would really be good to get specific suggestions from you. What
should be cut? What should be changed? I have made specific
suggestions for increasing simplicity for example by making
collections a separate document.

regards
Paul



On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> I just did a quick scan of the Annotation community docs just announced
>
>   http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/
>
> and it seems to me that they've done a fairly good job of separating the core
> structural ontology components from the "epistemic" extensions (those conveying
> particular knowledge about the types of annotations, etc.).
>
> I think the provenance ontology could divide up quite easily along the same lines.
>
> And the style of the "Core" specification
> (http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/) makes it really easy to pick up the
> essential components of the annotation structure.  Maybe we could learn from
> that too.
>
> Just saying...
>
> #g
> --
>



-- 
--
Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
Assistant Professor
Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group
Artificial Intelligence Section
Department of Computer Science
VU University Amsterdam
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2012 11:01:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 May 2012 11:01:37 GMT