- From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 11:39:49 +0100
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- CC: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On 06/05/2012 12:01, Paul Groth wrote:
> 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.
"Starting points" doesn't do it for me, because it still implies a requirement
to use all the other complex stuff. I don't understand the concern about "core"
vs "non-core" since (to my mind) there *is* a clear distinction between some
core structural elements and non-structural ("epistemic"?) elements.
To date, my review effort has focused on the DM, since that *should* be a
natural goto point for someone seeking to get a grasp of the actual technical
details, but to my mind it does not succeed in that. On the basis of a brief
scan, I think the primer and ontology documents do much better.
> 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.
I'm working on some suggestions that I'll try to articulate in a separate email.
#g
--
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 11:59:25 UTC