W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-prov@w3.org > April 2010

Re: organizing the state of the art document

From: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:05:54 +0100
Message-ID: <4BD01F82.1040208@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: Paolo Missier <pmissier@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>, "public-xg-prov@w3.org" <public-xg-prov@w3.org>
Hi Paul, Paolo, and all,


Paolo Missier wrote:
> Hi Paul & all
> 
> I agree on the focus, in view of the ultimate goal of the group which 
> is, in my understanding, to provide recommendations on the opportunity 
> for a W3C WG 

Or even to people who are interested in searching for technologies to 
suit their provenance requirements.


-- and IMO this can only be based on technology gap
> analysis wrt requirements.
> 
> Associating a task force to each /dimension/ may be a bit too 
> fine-grained, maybe? the idea is good but management can be a concern.  
> Maybe dimension group to start with, to see where it goes?  

Paolo, what do you mean by /dimension group/? Do you mean the top three 
dimensions, i.e. content, management and use? The initial idea of having 
task forces for each dimension meant exactly this level of granularity. 
Sorry if the message became misleading in the telecom.

A good thing to use wiki for creating such document is that nobody is 
excluded from anything. One can also chip in and check the progress and 
direction of others.

As we are all volunteers to the group, I felt it was absolutely 
necessary to have someone dedicating their time to think carefully how 
to organize and coordinate things. This someone can be different people 
at different development stage, given the time scale of individuals. 
Sub-tasking the writing of the document could increase focus and reduce 
efforts, to some extent.

[...]

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

+1

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

Matrix is a good idea. Defining the matrix is the most difficult.
>>
>> 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 

It sounds like that before reviewing the state-of-the-art, we will need 
to start from reviewing the requirement gathering and tease out the 
technical requirements?

>> 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.

It is a group/community effort, and this is how it should be done.
>>
>> Anyway, that's my proposal: focus on technology meeting requirements, 
>> task forces ensuring that the matrix gets filled out with proper 
>> justfication.

Are the existing provenance reviews only getting combined in when 
filling in the matrix? Would they also help us with defining the matrix?

cheers,

Jun
Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 10:06:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 22 April 2010 10:06:24 GMT