W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-prov@w3.org > June 2011

Re: further comments on IPV

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 08:36:06 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|0294efda021503b5a94e7110e5e6e135n5Q8a908L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4E0832E6.3010202@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-xg-prov@w3.org
Hi Paolo, all,

I am catching up with emails sent for the last 5 days.

Your suggestion of formalizing definitions is good, but it is not what 
we were trying to do here.
We wanted to provide *natural language definitions* for all concepts, so 
that we begin to share
a common vocabulary.  Once we have this, we can then:
- define an ontology/schema for the terminology, so that we can 
represent provenance
- define a semantics
- iteratively, inform and refine the natural language definitions

Therefore, we need to be reasonable. We might argue for the next 6 
months about the English definition
of a Thing.  What will it bring us?

In fact, we are in serious danger of making the face to face meeting 
unproductive, since we are not going
to have definitions of concepts.  I would argue that we should have 
"strawman" definitions for all
concepts, including version and collections (recognizing though that we 
will not have reached agreement by
then).

Regards,
Luc




On 06/23/2011 03:52 PM, Paolo Missier wrote:
> Greetings,
>   I am slowly catching up and I have decided to start from what is 
> recorded in the wiki rather than trying to playback  long and winding 
> threads.
>
> sorry to vent, but I started with "Concept 'Invariant View or 
> Perspective on a Thing'" and I am already utterly confused. For a 
> member of the Model TF who is tasked with a synthesising and 
> reconciling job, this is not good :-)
> So I appended some comments of my own here, which are mostly 
> questions: 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptInvariantViewOnThing#Comment_by_PM__24_June_2011.3D
>
> The main message is: I really feel the need for some precision, which 
> doesn't mean formalising at all costs, but at least picking a 
> reference framework for modelling: ER, objects, UML... something that 
> has, er, a clear semantics that one can build upon! (ok, so perhaps 
> UML does not qualify :-))
>
> Regards, -Paolo
>

-- 
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 Monday, 27 June 2011 07:36:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 June 2011 07:36:49 GMT