Re: Where should "Provenance" go?

Grouping 'Provenance" with "Versioning" probably makes the most sense,
as long as we agree that they are not the same thing ;)

I would expect:

* "Versioning" to include policies/best practices for URI management,
metadata management as well as actual data management
* "Provenance" to be more focused on policies/best practices for
metadata management; note that the metadata collected may be a
superset of tat requires for the specific problem of version
management.

The PROV example presented at
<http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceExample> is excellent and
shows how the collection of related metadata (providing the context of
an operation) may be required.

John

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 2:15 PM,  <t.omitola@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> Provenance is applicable to most of the topics but more pertinent to
> Versioning. So, provenance can go with Versioning.
>
> Best
>
> Tope
>
> Quoting John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi Fellow GLDers!
>>
>> In the last meeting we discussed injecting "Provenance" into the "Best
>> Practices" document. My concern is that currently the structure is
>> driven by the charter, which lists...
>>
>> 2.2 Best Practices for Publishing Linked Data
>> 2.2.1 Procurement
>> 2.2.2 Vocabulary Selection
>> 2.2.3 URI Construction
>> 2.2.4 Versioning
>> 2.2.5 Stability
>> 2.2.6 Legacy Data
>> 2.2.7 Cookbook
>>
>> "Provenance" per se is only mentioned in the charter as part of the
>> Vocabulary discussion, where (one might argue) it could remain, but
>> I'd like to hear people's thoughts.
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> --
>> John S. Erickson, Ph.D.
>> Director, Web Science Operations
>> Tetherless World Constellation (RPI)
>> <http://tw.rpi.edu> <olyerickson@gmail.com>
>> Twitter & Skype: olyerickson
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
John S. Erickson, Ph.D.
Director, Web Science Operations
Tetherless World Constellation (RPI)
<http://tw.rpi.edu> <olyerickson@gmail.com>
Twitter & Skype: olyerickson

Received on Monday, 26 September 2011 20:04:36 UTC