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

Re: Suggested Concepts for Charter

From: Paolo Missier <pmissier@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:09:20 +0000
Message-ID: <4CED1C90.30507@acm.org>
To: Daniel Garijo <dgarijov@gmail.com>
CC: "<public-xg-prov@w3.org>" <public-xg-prov@w3.org>
Daniel,
   I expressed my POV on spatial relations in the discussion page: 
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Talk:Proposal_for_a_Working_Group_on_Provenance  point (p2)
would you not agree that space and time are different in the way they should be considered as provenance-related properties?

-Paolo


On 24/11/2010 12:56, Daniel Garijo wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> I am sorry, I think i didn't express myself correctly. I meant that in the last calls i felt like the definitions for provenance 
> about provenance (provenance metadata) where out of the scope the WG, which would be more centered in finding the core concepts 
> for provenance in general.
>
> Also, there exist some ontologies for modelling time... should we leave the time parameters out of the core and add them in the 
> best practice guide too?
> Best,
> Daniel
>
> 2010/11/24 Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com <mailto:pgroth@gmail.com>>
>
>     Hi Daniel,
>
>     Your correct, the mappings can be a guide. This actually doesn't have to be a huge task. Just put all the concepts that are
>     close to one another together on the wiki. I would do it but won't be able to today.
>
>     I think defining the core concepts for provenance on the web is exactly what the WG should be doing. Otherwise, I don't know
>     what the WG should do?
>
>     Finally, there are many other widely used ontologies that define spatial relationships. One can say that "where" is an
>     important concept in provenance but I would suggest that defining "where" and relationships between where is outside the scope
>     of the WG. It may be something that should be put in the best practice guide. i.e. use ontology x for spatial descriptions.
>
>     cheers,
>     Paul
>
>
>     Daniel Garijo wrote:
>
>         Hi Paul, Paulo, all.
>         For the grouping of concepts we could also use the mappings between
>         vocabularies (many similar concepts have been mapped to opm entities there).
>
>         Paulo, I have read over the proposed concepts posted in the wiki, but I
>         don't see how any of those can be grouped as provenance metadata. I
>         agree that it is very important to have a minimum core of concepts for
>         this task because it relevant for some of the scenarios, but in the last
>         telecons i got the feeling that was out of the scope of the WG. The DC
>         Metadata provenance task group [1] (Led By Kai Eckert and Michael
>         Panzer) is focused on this task.
>
>         Finally, why the spatial parameters should be excluded from the core? In
>         the end is metadata about where the artifact/experiment/document has
>         been produced...
>
>         Best,
>         Daniel
>
Received on Wednesday, 24 November 2010 14:09:53 UTC

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