Re: Preliminary Feedback on GLD ORG

Dave,

No need to change the document.  I think I was more wrapped up in our
previous email exchange. :-) After re-reading the references to OPMV
the document clearly states of the history of ORG previously
supporting OPMV which is an important for users aligning
earlier/current ORG concepts.

It appears OPMV still has a reference in the ontology.  Is this
reference still included to maintain backward compatibility with
previous versions of ORG?

Thanks,

Eric


> Is there some specific change in the spec document that you think is needed
> here?
>
> It sounds like you are suggesting we remove even the "informative" comment
> about OPMV. I would be reluctant to do that give that ORG use pre-dates the
> OPMV/PROV-O switch but if that's needed in order to get to convergence then
> I guess I'd go along with it.




On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Dave Reynolds
<dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
>
>>>> 2.4 Organizational History (non-normative)
>>
>>
>>>
>>> OPMV has essentially been superseded by PROV-O, ORG used to link to OMPV,
>>> now it links to PROV-O and there's no OPMV terms mentioned in the
>>> ontology.
>>
>>
>> --> -1.  OPMV is among many provenance vocabularies will continue to
>> exist even after W3C PROV simply because many services, tools, and
>> APIs in production today.    Because the fact that  other non-W3C
>> provenance vocabularies aren't mentioned here I suggest just
>> mentioning the W3C PROV.
>
>
> I guess I was talking from the narrow perspective of ORG. In ORG we used to
> link to OPMV, the WG decided we should change that to PROV-O, hence the
> non-normative comment.
>
> I'm happy to accept that OPMV usage will continue in the wider world.
>
> Is there some specific change in the spec document that you think is needed
> here?
>
> It sounds like you are suggesting we remove even the "informative" comment
> about OPMV. I would be reluctant to do that give that ORG use pre-dates the
> OPMV/PROV-O switch but if that's needed in order to get to convergence then
> I guess I'd go along with it.
>
> Dave
>

Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2013 12:25:42 UTC