Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Small, scruffy provenance profile?]]

Hi David,

Thanks for your comment. We are really sorry that the comment didn't come
through and there was an error in the document.

I was wondering if your comment still applies? If you look at prov-o,
you'll see section
http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#description-starting-point-terms

This defines a core of provenance and everything else is bonus.

Do you think pointing this out in a FAQ would help?

or do you want something that breaks this out even more.

regards
Paul






On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 5:33 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:

> [This is my THIRD attempt to send these comments to the prov working
> group.  The primer at http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-primer/ says to send
> comments to public-prov-wg@w3.org , but since that has not worked I'm
> now trying public-prov-wg@w3.org ]
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
> To: public-prov-wg <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
> Subject: [Fwd: Small, scruffy provenance profile?]
> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 12:01:09 -0400
>
> FYI, this is a comment that I sent to the working group last February,
> though apparently it never got there, as I don't see it in the archives.
> I'm not sure that it makes sense now -- seven months later -- to
> consider this as an actual request, since the working group is much
> farther along now, but I think it is still worth reading.  The primer at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-primer-20120724/
> is definitely a good step in this direction.  Thanks!
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
> To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Small, scruffy provenance profile?
> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:01:49 -0500
>
> I find myself intimidated by the size and complexity of the current
> provenance work -- to the point that I am tempted to invent my own small
> ontology instead, which would be very unfortunate.
>
> Could we please have a small, scruffy provenance profile that could be
> used in the many situations where great detail and precise semantics are
> not needed?  I'm sure the existing detail and precision are important to
> some applications.  I appreciate the effort involved in figuring them
> out, and I'm not suggesting discarding this work.  But a small profile
> might allow both needs to be addressed.
>
> As a comparative example, the big success of SKOS is due to its
> simplicity: it is un-intimidating.  It can be used by the masses for
> lots of simple things.  (And as Jim Hendler famously said, "A little bit
> of semantics goes a long way".)
>
> So . . . how about a small, simple profile that does not require a
> tutorial, does not require learning a new abstract syntax or data model,
> and does not require the user to study its formal semantics (for fear of
> using it wrong)?
>
>
>
>
> --
> David Booth, Ph.D.
> http://dbooth.org/
>
> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
> reflect those of his employer.
>
>
>