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

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

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:19:30 +0200
Message-ID: <CAExK0Dd8Ti843k+Cj+kb0uJjE+gRkF_pj9hUgTkd7pmcXHPT=A@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>
Wouldn't the expanded terms & qualifications be "buried" in the document
if they are after a cross reference terms section?

I am a bit concerned about people just reaching that section and thinking
that that is all.
On the other hand, the proposed reordering could guide people with simple
requirements
to use the model according to their needs. Hmmm.

I think we could try it and see what is the feedback we get. Maybe a FAQ or
usage guidelines
would help to use the ontology.

Best,
Daniel

2012/10/25 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>

> 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 12:19:58 UTC

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