Re: Preliminary Feedback on GLD ORG

Hi Eric,

On 19/02/13 12:25, Eric Stephan wrote:
> 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.

Fine, thanks for confirming.

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

Ah, well spotted. It does seem inconsistent to leave in some but not all 
of the original OPMV references. It would be cleaner, given what the 
spec currently says, to remove that. Done.

Thanks,
Dave

>> 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 OPMV has essentially been superseded by PROV-O, ORG used to link to OMPV,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 13:33:52 UTC