organizing the state of the art document

Hi All,

It sounded like we wanted to continue this discussion from the phone 
call. I wanted to throw out a recommendation.

First, I think it's not apparent what the goal of this document is. My 
suggestion is, since there already exist several good reviews of the 
state of the art, that instead we should focus on how existing 
technologies meet the user requirements and the subsequent technical 
requirements these pose. This is a bit different than a review because 
it focuses more on the what's missing in terms of technology to meet the 
requirements for provenance on the web.

Given that goal, I would suggest to merge the two approaches that were 
brought up on the last telecon.

We should aim to develop a matrix that shows how different technologies 
meet the technical requirements that we've gathered.

I would suggest that each provenance dimension have a task force that is 
responsible for listing the technologies and requirements for each 
dimension and then recruiting people expert in each technology to write 
how this technology fits with the requirements. For example, I would 
expect someone like Paulo to give a good response for PML, or  James on 
DBNotes. We could also approach people outside the group to fill out a 
form about their technology.  It would be important that some text would 
be attached to give justification for how the technology meets a 
requirement. The task force would then be responsible for integrating 
this text.

Anyway, that's my proposal: focus on technology meeting requirements, 
task forces ensuring that the matrix gets filled out with proper 
justfication.

Thoughts?

Paul



-- 
Dr. Paul Groth (pgroth@few.vu.nl)
http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth
Postdoc
Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group
Artificial Intelligence Section
Department of Computer Science
VU University Amsterdam