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

Hi Paul,

Jim McCusker emailed me privately, and I responded:
[[
On Thu, 2012-09-27 at 12:28 -0400, David Booth wrote:
> Hi Jim,
> 
> I had not looked at the PROV-O document.  I was assuming that an
> ontology spec would get into the details, and the primer would be a
> better starting point.  I like the "PROV-O at a glance" section:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#prov-o-at-a-glance
> That would serve as an excellent roadmap for a tutorial.
> 
> Thanks,
> David

P.S. In looking further, I see that section 3 is organized that way:
http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#description
and does provide some tutorial-like material.  I guess I expected PROV-O
to be reference material, rather than tutorial.  So now I'm confused:
why is primer material both in the primer and in PROV-O?

Thanks,
David


On Thu, 2012-09-27 at 19:01 +0200, Paul Groth wrote:
> 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.
>         
>         
> 
> 

-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.

Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 17:16:50 UTC