- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:16:21 -0400
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Cc: "public-prov-comments@w3.org" <public-prov-comments@w3.org>
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