Re: A proposed provenance wg draft charter

  Hi,
  I will take a close look at the paper as soon as I can.
As a minor procedural point, however, and this is /not/ a rethorical question:  am I the only one to find it a bit odd that we 
should use this paper for discussion (albeit re-labelled as internal tech report), given that the paper is currently under 
submission to a special issue, whose editors are amongst the people who are actually involved in the discussion. or is it normal 
practice

-Paolo

On 16/10/2010 17:12, Daniel Garijo wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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.
>