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

Re: A proposed provenance wg draft charter

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijov@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 18:12:17 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTinzb4DPPNFk8HnZ2O=p8hNfup=Vsj-r5Q-Xz3=S@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paulo Pinheiro da Silva <paulo@utep.edu>
Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Deborah McGuinness <dlm@cs.rpi.edu>, Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>, "public-xg-prov@w3.org" <public-xg-prov@w3.org>
Thanks Paulo for the paper. I think it helps to understand better both
vocabularies.
If OPM is not the right starting point, I think it would be helpful to know
what is exactly your proposal to start working towards a standard.
Maybe this kind of discussion is the right starting point.
Best,
Daniel

2010/10/15 Paulo Pinheiro da Silva <paulo@utep.edu>

> It is a shame indeed.
>
>
>  Shame that we have had public discussion for 1 year, and you have
>> written a document, in private, and you only release now, despite
>> our continuously asking for your input.
>>
>
> It took me forever to understand OPM enough to be comfortable to talk about
> it as I am now. It would be much easier for me to discuss about OPM if I had
> more inputs regarding how OPM compares to PML.
>
> Regarding the fact of doing it privately, I please ask you to see this as
> an initial effort of coming up with something more substantial than just a
> superficial mapping between the languages. Otherwise, we would end up where
> we are right now in terms of truly understanding each other approaches.
>
> Many thanks,
> Paulo.
>
>
>  I am afraid I don't have time to read it before today's call!
>>
>> Luc
>>
>> On 10/15/2010 03:33 PM, Paulo Pinheiro da Silva wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Luc el at.,
>>>
>>> I like the work that has been done at the incubator. Like Deborah, I
>>> regret not participating as much as I would like -- for different
>>> reasons than Deborah I have also had a difficult year.
>>>
>>> Concerning the bias mentioned in Deborah's message, I see that our PML
>>> group has put a lot of effort to understand OPM and I cannot see a
>>> similar effort from the OPM group to understand work that has been done
>>> at the PML side. For example, I put together a collection of PML papers
>>> together with some highlights that are related to the first scenario and
>>> the response was that previous work was done in the OPM side as well.
>>> Well, I read all the documents that were cited as a response that
>>> similar work was done with OPM (and OPM predecessors) and my conclusion
>>> is that some of the unanswered questions (referred to as provenance
>>> gaps) are still open questions in the OPM side of the world.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I do not see OPM as a subset of PML and my response to this is
>>> in the form of an article submission to the JWS special edition on
>>> provenance run by Yolanda and Paul.
>>>
>>> http://www.cs.utep.edu/paulo/papers/PinheirodaSilva_JWS_2010.pdf
>>>
>>> Anyway, I am releasing this article submission as a tech report as a way
>>> to substantiate my claim the URI for the tech report is above. Please
>>> note that this report is just my opinion and not an opinion of the PML
>>> group. I recognize that further effort needs to be done to fully
>>> understand the mapping between OPM, PML, and the many other important
>>> provenance notations out there and that is why I cannot understand this
>>> suggestion of us of recommending OPM as in the draft put out by Paul
>>> Groth.
>>>
>>> Many thanks,
>>> Paulo.
>>>
>>>  Deborah,
>>>>
>>>> I think we should not forget the work that the incubator has done.
>>>> I do not understand your statement "there is strong a bias when one
>>>> starts with one
>>>> and tries to shoehorn in the others."
>>>>
>>>> Let's be concrete, I suppose you are talking about PML,
>>>> - what is the bias in OPM that makes it difficult to shoehorn PML
>>>> concepts
>>>>
>>>> (ditto for other provenance languages).
>>>>
>>>> The mapping exercise, to my knowledge, did not identify any.  Please
>>>> correct me if
>>>> I am wrong.
>>>>
>>>> This issue needs to be nailed down. I am happy to have a teleconference
>>>> at some other
>>>> mutually convenient time. But, we need to be able to justify our
>>>> position.  It's important
>>>> to do it soon, because we can't write a final report properly with
>>>> knowing what the conclusions
>>>> are.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding the "fast" aspect, I think it is crucial too. Otherwise,
>>>> somebody else
>>>> will do it, de-facto way!
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Luc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/15/2010 02:33 PM, Deborah McGuinness wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>   On 10/15/2010 8:53 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Fast working groups are good but I think we should focus on the
>>>>> outcome rather than fast.  it is not that fast precludes quality but
>>>>> we should not focus on fast and have that preclude other options that
>>>>> may be considered more representative of the broader provenance
>>>>> community.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Actually I think the DAML+OIL model is quite apt.
>>>>> DAML was developed by a large DARPA program over years with many
>>>>> participants.
>>>>> OIL also was developed by a consortium of people as well over time
>>>>> (and actually there was a little bit of overlap in the authors but it
>>>>> was relatively small).
>>>>> Both grew up at about the same time.
>>>>> While this is looking back, I would venture to say that if either went
>>>>> in as a proposed standard without engaging the other community, either
>>>>> would have had a VERY hard time getting through a standards body
>>>>> DESPITE the fact that each had a significant community who had worked
>>>>> on them.
>>>>> What happened was that  an adhoc US/UK working group self formed to
>>>>> put something together that reflected what the authors thought
>>>>> captured the essence of both.
>>>>>
>>>>> OPM was emerging in approximately the same timeframe as some of the
>>>>> other contender provenance models.  I agree of course that it came out
>>>>> of a community but it did not include much participation from some
>>>>> other communities.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we need to look at what is out there now and determine what
>>>>> the starting point should be and I do not think that OPM reflects the
>>>>> starting point for some of the other communities.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Furthermore, as we say in the draft, OPM is the starting point
>>>>>>
>>>>> My objection is to taking OPM  as the starting point.
>>>>> I think there is too strong a bias when one starts with one and tries
>>>>> to shoehorn in the others.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paulo in particular had raised a number of issues when he was trying
>>>>> to look more deeply at connections and embedded assumptions.
>>>>>
>>>>>  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?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that having one starting point and refining may be considered
>>>>> to be a fast approach  but if one really thinks there may be
>>>>> significant changes, then that may not be the case.  I think though
>>>>> that it could easily be interpreted as biasing the outcome towards
>>>>> that starting point (and i would interpret it that way and would be
>>>>> unhappy).
>>>>> I think though we need to be open to other starting points so i think
>>>>> we have to be open to other starting points.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see two routes that could be taken (and of course there are more).
>>>>> 1 - write a charter now that takes starting points as input
>>>>> 2 - follow the owl model and form an adhoc working group whose aim it
>>>>> is to come up with a joint submission for the starting point.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I  support a working group to come up with a recommended provenance
>>>>> model.
>>>>> I  do NOT support a working group that takes a single starting point
>>>>> and aims to refine that one to come up with the recommendation.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 Saturday, 16 October 2010 16:12:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 16 October 2010 16:12:54 GMT