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

Re: Charter Deliverables as agreed on Friday

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:05:28 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|f68ceb4a89844157144275c62f50046emAMC5W08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4CEBAE08.5070008@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
CC: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>, "<public-xg-prov@w3.org>" <public-xg-prov@w3.org>
Hi James,
Thanks for your input.
Your comments and some response are on the discussion page:

On 11/23/2010 10:28 AM, James Cheney wrote:
> Hi all,
> Just to play devil's advocate, here are some comments.  Maybe some of 
> these were answered already through the discussion Friday that I missed.
> 1. The deliverables are numbered D1-D9, but there is no D5.
> 2.   There are a lot of deliverables for 2 years: 5 recommendations 
> and 3 notes.  My understanding is recommendations require a longer 
> lead time and public comment period, so producing 5 recommendations 
> for a 2-year process seems like a lot.
> By comparison, have a look at the RDB2RDF charter/WG: it has only 5 
> deliverables with 1-2 of them being recommendations, and was also 
> meant to run in 2 years, and I understand that that has still been a 
> slog.
> 3.  What is the difference between having an XML "serialization" (D6) 
> vs. an OWL/RDF/etc. "formal model" (D2)?  Why do both (or either) need 
> to be standardized?
> 4.  Why do we have both a "formal model" and "formal semantics" 
> deliverable?  What is the difference, and what are the expected 
> benefits of formalization?
> 5.  Likewise, why do D4 (accessing and querying) and D7 (mappings) 
> need to be recommendations/standards, rather than notes?  I can see 
> that the access issue might require some future architectural/protocol 
> standardization.  But is that something that can be done by a WG 
> unilaterally?  For querying and for the mappings I am not sure I 
> understand the rationale for standardization.  These could perhaps be 
> sub-deliverables of the "primer" or "cookbook".
> Overall, the current list gives me the impression of a last-minute 
> rush to include everything that might be useful.  This inclusiveness 
> is good, but I worry that it might wind up overcommitting the WG or 
> making the plan look too ambitious for the time available.  My feeling 
> is that the fewer discrete "tasks", the better for focus and 
> flexibility, since there is a start-up cost to each deliverable.
> I also wonder if we can estimate how much work the different parts 
> will take, and which are considered "must be recommendation" vs. 
> "decide later" and "required" vs. "optional".  I understand that some 
> thought about this was already done in the various WG charter drafts 
> so maybe it is just a matter of transferring these to the wiki.
> --James
> On Nov 22, 2010, at 8:37 PM, Paul Groth wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> The deliverable list we agreed upon on Friday is now on the wiki at:
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Proposal_for_a_Working_Group_on_Provenance 
>> Thanks,
>> Paul

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2010 12:06:12 UTC

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