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

Re: Provenance specs: have we lost sight of the goal?

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 08:08:10 -0400
Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <01EF8ED3-046F-4DFF-871A-D172E59C9C7F@rpi.edu>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Stian,


On Oct 25, 2012, at 8:00 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

> 


> 
> I think we've done a lot on the way. For instance PROV-O starts with
> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#description-starting-point-terms - a
> simple and easy explanation to Entity/Activity/Agent. But then,
> instead of detailing those
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#cross-reference-starting-point-terms) we
> move on to Expanded Terms, and then finally Qualified Terms.   Perhaps
> if we reversed the list it would be more sensical? Kind of like TOC:
> 
> 1. Introduction
> 2. PROV-O at a glance
> 3  Starting Point Terms
> --3.1 Ontology Description
> --3.2 Cross reference
> 4 Expanded Terms
> --4.1 Ontology Description
> --4.2 Cross reference
> 5 Qualified Terms
> --5.1 Ontology Description
> --5.2 Cross reference
> A. PROV-O OWL Profile
> B. Names of inverse properties
> C. Acknowledgements
> D. References
> D.1 Normative references
> D.2 Informative references
> 
> 
> What do you think of this idea? (Did we try something like that
> earlier, Khalid/Tim/Jun ? )
> 
> 


I think this reordering would be satisfactory if not slightly better. If others think that it would be better, we can give it a try.

Regards,
Tim
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 12:08:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:20 UTC