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

Re: Proposal on PROV-DM reorganization

From: Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 09:15:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+=hbbcSc_EfPnq5gy6HyCi8tz9LTPzCkbq6=RrA5P6n1b9MYQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Paul,

this looks like a very good compromise.

I like that the component structure (which also benefits overall
readability of the document) is preserved, and that both core and advanced
concepts remain in one document, be it separated by sections. This makes
sure that someone interested in provenance only needs to read one document
in order to comprehend most of the concepts, and especially the essential
ones.

I read in last week's minutes that revising the DM structure would imply
changing the other documents as well. However, as far as I can see, only
PROV-N shares the same structure with PROV-DM, or did I miss something?

anyway, +1 for this consensus proposal.

Regards,
Tom


2012/5/20 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>

> Paul,
>
> Thanks for looking at a way to bridge Graham's proposal with the current
> organization.
>
> I think that a combination of the current organization and Graham's will
> be the best result - both have very good qualities.
>
> 1)
> I think one document is best - don't confuse the issue by "which document
> is it in". Too many W3C specs do this and it's confusing.
>
> 2)
> I think that "components" needs to stay as an important organizational
> principle.
>
> 3)
> Graham's list in section 1.5 is a good "core" and reflects most of what I
> cover in my PROV elevator speeches (and napkins).
>
> 4)
> Splitting Graham's 1.5 up into "Entities and Activities" versus "Agents,
> Association, Attribution, and Responsibility" would help tremendously.
>
> 5)
> I'd like to see Plan as part of "Association" instead of in "sub typing".
> The fact that it is an entity is secondary to the fact that it's an
> elaboration of Association (how the Agent did it).
>
> 6)
> "full derivation" and "full association" are nice phrasings. I think we've
> finally nailed the incremental derivation (wasDerivedBy, Derivation, +=
> hadActivity, += hadUsage, += hadGeneration).
>
> 7)
> +1 for term "extended" beyond a "core"
>
> -Tim
>
>
>
>
> On May 20, 2012, at 6:01 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > During last week's telcon [1] the chairs were tasked to come-up with a
> > proposal that tried to reflect consensus on reorganization of the data
> > model. This would take into account both Graham's proposal [2] as well
> > as the WG discusion and prior agreements.
> >
> > We've come up with with the following proposal:
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDM_ConsensusProposal
> >
> > We hope this reflects a consensus with the working group and something
> > we could proceed on. Is this a good foundation to proceed?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-05-17
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDM_Proposal_for_restructuring
> >
> >
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 21 May 2012 07:16:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 21 May 2012 07:16:18 GMT