RE: Bootstrapping the "Model Task Force"

Luc,
I think this is a reasonable process but given how large the scenario is
(it's much closer to comprehensive than to being trivial!), I suspect it
may be hard to jump directly into issue by issue email discussions.
Would walk-through of this scenario on one of the calls be a good way to
introduce the work of the exploratory group? Should the email discussion
be structured, e.g. sending the "1. Resource" issues out to spark a
conversation there and following up with "2 Process Execution" issues
after that, etc.? I don't know if we have time for that, but my concern
is that with 17 topics listed (more than we have people?), we could have
a lot of threads making different basic assumptions and having some way
to concentrate/organize our efforts on a few areas at a time might help.

--  Jim


-----Original Message-----
From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-prov-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Luc Moreau
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 7:04 PM
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Subject: Bootstrapping the "Model Task Force"


Dear all,

At the 2011/04/28 teleconference, it was identified that we need to:
1. bring people up to date (following the work of the provenance
incubator) 2. develop some common terminology and understanding

We propose to structure this activity by bootstrapping the Model Task
Force as follows:

- We work with an initial scenario  (other scenarios and applications
will be the
   focus of the Implementation and Test Cases Task Force)
- We list "provenance-related queries" which we would like to support in
this
   scenario
- We then informally define concepts identified in the charter
    (identified by the incubator group
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/XGR-prov-20101214/#Proposed_Charte
r_for_a_Provenance_Interchange_Working_Group)
- Over time, this will allow us to construct a vocabulary and a shared
understanding,
   which we will then formalize in the provenance model

Our primary goal is to get the ball rolling in a structured manner. At
this stage, the scenario should not be trivial but it does not need to
cover all provenance notions we want to tackle.

Any Working Group member will be able to raise issues, which will be
debated by emails. When consensus is reached, we will resolve issues.
We will iterate this activity till we converge towards a common
vocabulary and its intuitive definition.

Is there any objection to this approach? Let's discuss this by email,
again, with the aim of reaching consensus by the next teleconference.

If there is no major objection with the approach, here is a scenario
inspired by data.gov, and a listing of charter concepts
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceExampleAndConcept1

*PLEASE NOTE*: this page was produced simply to begin the process of
building a shared terminology within the WG.

Let's discuss the scenario/queries/terminology by email.

Best regards,
Luc and Paul

Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 15:36:41 UTC