- From: Christophe Guéret <c.d.m.gueret@vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 07:56:41 +0200
- To: John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-gld-wg@w3.org" <public-gld-wg@w3.org>, "t.omitola@ecs.soton.ac.uk" <t.omitola@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
On Mon 26 Sep 2011 22:04:07 CEST, John Erickson wrote: > Grouping 'Provenance" with "Versioning" probably makes the most sense, > as long as we agree that they are not the same thing ;) They are indeed two different, but not unrelated, things and I would argue it's a reason for not putting them together. Why not just keeping provenance into the vocabulary discussion? Seemed to be a reasonable setup. During our last call "pragmatic provenance" was mentionned as, if I remember correctly, enough provenance information to help govs know where the data come from and state the licence of theirs. This could be addressed by picking up the related ontology terms. Depending how we concretely use the keyword "pragmatic", even a limited subset of the provenance ontology(ies) may be necessary. That said, nothing prevents the "Versioning" part to also use the result from the provenance WG if they produce some recommendations that are usefull to track versioning of data sets. If so, provenance would be added to both Vocabularies and Versioning ;-) Christophe
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2011 05:56:42 UTC