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

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

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:18:37 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRp6s0QhRiPMT_5ToxdxcEwvHfQZ1iLksH8SK5wRACoQbQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Cc: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi all,

Obviously, if the group wants to do this that's fine but I'm worried about
the bandwidth of people. I would like all the public comment issues to be
addressed before we get to this.

Stian - I agree that it's great to have more content to make things easier
to get at. I would welcome anyone doing that.

But these are specifications - look at html5 (http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/)
it's pretty massive. We have to be precise and specific and we have to
enumerate everything. As you said the primer is easy to access, I don't
know what we can do more to get people to read the primer first. Maybe a
big bold block across all specs (Go to primer first!)

thanks
Paul



On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>


-- 
--
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
- The Network Institute
VU University Amsterdam
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 12:19:05 UTC

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