[ISSUE-6] Re: [ACTION-123]

Hi Moritz,
Thanks for following up on this action, which addresses the ongoing 
ISSUE-6 - let keep discussion under this thread.

First we should remember the role such a model should play in ITS2.0, 
specifically we need process values for both the readiness and the 
progress data categories. These values should also be used in a 
consistent way for the value of the activity object in the PROV WG 
proposed for stand-off provenance mark-up.

However, as discussed in Dublin, this is a complex topic with lots of 
different views, so we are not aiming for a normative outcome, but some 
best practice document to accompany ITS2.0.

To facilitate this I suggest we capture process definition separately  
and hopefully agree a common set of process names using wiki page:

but do this in parallel to, and therefore not holding up, the normative 
data category definitions.

I've moved Pedro's suggested process names onto this page but reworked 
them to:
- provide names the might be more broadly accessible, and in the style 
of data categories (i.e. with hyphens rather than camel case)
- provide a little more in terms of process definition
- add a few processes I thought were missing
- group under some headings, again to help communicate between different 
viewpoints, and provided some further structure through suggested 
subclass relationship between some process definitions.

To go forward in firming up these definitions, I propose we add some 
input and output plus some conditions on these. Then we can rerun the 
exercise Arle started with the included table to cross referencing these 
again CRUD usage of data categories.

At this point then, I'd asked interested people to review this page and 
either provide comments/revisions to existing processes or suggest other 
one we need.


On 22/06/2012 17:17, Moritz Hellwig wrote:
> Hello,
> in Dublin we talked about processes and whether we can find a common 
> (basic) set of processes that we can use for ITS 2.0. So I'd like to 
> trigger a discussion to find if we can agree on such an ontology. I 
> think it was Pedro who was kind enough to provide two models and a set 
> of processes we can discuss: 
> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#Process_Model 
> I favour Model 1. And I think there definitely should be a difference 
> between processes that apply to the target, the source or both.
> Could we take the models and list as a model and collect which 
> processes are needed from your side? Or can maybe be omitted?
> Cheers,
> Moritz

Received on Sunday, 24 June 2012 23:27:51 UTC