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

Re: W3C Provenance Working Group Charter - alternate version for discussion

From: Yolanda Gil <gil@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 07:53:32 -0800
Cc: "<public-xg-prov@w3.org>" <public-xg-prov@w3.org>
Message-Id: <35EFE838-0D2A-46F9-98C5-A1EA37A5F057@isi.edu>
To: Satya Sahoo <sahoo.2@wright.edu>
Hi Satya:

Thanks for getting this going, this is great!  What we had agreed was  
that specific issues about the charter should be raised one by one, so  
your change tracking document is very useful to see what items you  
would want changed.  Since I suspect many people don't use Word, would  
you be able to circulate a pointer to a PDF showing the changes?

One thing that I would like us to be much more specific about if  
possible is the set of terms that we would want to see included.  So  
when you say:

> The Incubator group found that the emerging models for provenance,  
> despite being originated from a wide range of domains, share a set  
> of three primary concepts of “Process”, “Agent”, and “Artifact” as  
> modeled in OPM. The mapping exercise by the incubator group  
> identified that in addition to OPM core concepts, a set of  
> additional terms that represent important provenance concepts from  
> other provenance terminologies. These additional terms from other  
> provenance terminologies, such as the Provenir ontology, the Proof  
> Markup Language, and Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI),  
> together with core OPM terms can form the bootstrapping basis of a  
> common provenance exchange language. This community-based approach  
> to create a will have significant advantages by drawing from the  
> multiple existing and in-use provenance terminologies.

(Though I think we have already discussed referring to "resource"  
rather than artifact.)

My question is: in addition to those 3 terms, what other specific  
terms are you proposing?  We agreed that we want the core model to be  
simple, so I think we need to be concrete about this.  My preference  
is to keep the core simple and then to have profiles that extend the  
core in important directions, and in that case it would be useful to  
identify what profiles we intend to recommend.

The more concrete we are the better chance that the charter will be  
successful.  And it is better to be specific about what concepts we  
would like to see, rather than point to whole languages as possible  
sources of inspiration.



On Nov 17, 2010, at 7:04 AM, Satya Sahoo wrote:

> Hi all,
> Following our discussions in the last telcon, I have put together a  
> modified/alternate version of the provenance working group charter  
> proposed by Paul and Luc.
> I have made it available as a pdf document at: http://knoesis.wright.edu/researchers/satya/pubs/W3CProvenanceWorkingGroupCharter_AlternateVersion.pdf 
> .
> I have also attached the original document (MS Word, .docx) with  
> changes in tracking mode.
> Similar to the original document from Paul and Luc, I expect this  
> document to initiate further discussions.
> Thanks.
> Best,
> Satya <W3CProvenanceWorkingGroupCharter_AlternateVersion.docx>
Received on Wednesday, 17 November 2010 15:54:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:56:00 UTC