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

Re: A proposed provenance wg draft charter

From: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 14:53:59 +0200
Message-ID: <4CB84EE7.1040301@gmail.com>
To: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@cs.rpi.edu>
CC: "public-xg-prov@w3.org" <public-xg-prov@w3.org>
Hi Deborah,

Thanks for your response. This is exactly the sort of discussion we 
wanted to start.

Luc and I wrote the proposal with the notion that we wanted a fast 
working group. With that in mind we thought it would be good to start 
with something already existing and not develop a whole new model. 
Additionally, we think that OPM is already a subset of what's out there 
already including PML. I think the DAML+OIL comparison is not so apt 
because OPM was already developed through a community process. 
Furthermore, as we say in the draft, OPM is the starting point and would 
change over the coarse of the working group.

Anyway, since you have a lot of experience on these working groups, I 
was wondering how you think we could design the charter to make 
production of a recommendation as fast as possible with the approach you 
have in mind?

Also, at least from my reading, it seems that you would endorse having a 
a working group work for a standard provenance model. Is that correct?


Deborah McGuinness wrote:
>  Greetings,
> Thanks for the work on the draft charter.
> I am sending this quickly because i just read the beginning and have a 
> significant problem with the slant of the charter with the position of
> "The goal of this working group is to refine the Open Provenance Model"
> and thought I should air this immediately upon seeing the draft.
> I strongly believe that the charter of a working group that would end 
> up with a provenance recommendation should start with the contender 
> models and take the best aspects from many of them RATHER than 
> starting with one model and refining it.  I strongly oppose the 
> position that the charter should take any single model and work to 
> refine it.  I would propose rather that this group would work like the 
> recent RIF working group or others where contender starting points 
> were submitted  or like the OWL working group where two contenders 
> emerged - DAML and OIL and members from each side worked to create a 
> submission - DAML+OIL that truly took elements from both languages and 
> ended up with a joint proposal rather than this way that just takes a 
> single model as a starting point.
> There was some disappointment in the group when we chose to map the 
> other contender models to a single model, but most if not all 
> understood that decision from the perspective of time.  I can not say 
> though that i (or i expect others who were disappointed) could go 
> along with this position in a proposed charter.
> I am sorry that this comes from someone who did not participate nearly 
> as much as I had hoped to.
> I had an extremely bad year with my mother's multiple hospitalizations 
> and general overwhelming health problems and her subsequent passing.   
> I simply have had no choice but to put everything other than family 
> health at a much lower priority.
> Deborah
> On 10/15/2010 7:58 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> Today on the call we are scheduled to talk about preparations for the 
>> final report. Luc and I feel that to write a compelling final report 
>> we should be clear about exactly what the report should recommend. 
>> There has been some consensus that a working group should be formed 
>> around the recommendations extracted from the scenarios ( 
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Recommendations_for_scenarios).
>> To that end, we have prepared a draft working group charter ( 
>> http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/lavm/draft-charter.html ). We note this 
>> is only *our own* proposal and we see this as a starting point for 
>> discussion within the group.
>> We look forward to any comments, questions, thoughts about this 
>> proposal. We hope this helps the group to continue to coalesce around 
>> a way forward.
>> Thanks,
>> Paul and Luc
Received on Friday, 15 October 2010 12:59:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:55:59 UTC