Re: proposal separating collections

Hi Stephan

I wasn't suggesting changing the namespace just a different document organization.

Does that still address the problem?
Paul

On May 7, 2012, at 3:26, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote:

> If we define collections (including dictionaries) in an extension to PROV-O with a different namespace it would resolve the current issue with dual usage of prov:value in the ontology (ISSUE-363) and would read very clean.
> 
> I support the suggestion to move collections and dictionaries out of the core provenance documents and into a recommendation and extension of prov-o.
> 
> --Stephan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgroth@gmail.com [mailto:pgroth@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Paul Groth
> Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2012 5:46 AM
> To: Provenance Working Group WG
> Subject: proposal separating collections
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> In our last telcon, there was an agenda item to discuss the possibility of creating a separate document around collections.
> 
> Currently, in prov-dm and particularly prov-o, collections take a lot of space to explain. This makes the documents seem unbalanced and the model seem more complicated than it is. Thus, I'm making the following
> proposal:
> 
> Make collections a separate document that contains both the content from prov-dm and prov-o. Collections would remain a recommendation.
> 
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> I would like to vote on this at next week's if we have consensus.
> 
> Thanks
> Paul
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 04:55:25 UTC