Re: Bootstrapping the "Model Task Force"

Luc -

There may be some more simple use cases in the geospatial domain. I did 
notice in your referenced example that:

6. Location
A link to a description of location. Defining how the spatial information is 
represented is out of scope, and we will point to an existing ontology.

No use of location in this example.

Issue: how can the WG formalize the notion of location with respect to 
provenance?

Issue: is location related to resources, process executions or agents?

Issue: how does this model of location in the context of provenance fit in 
the space-time model of physics?

Provenance is a big issue in the geospatial/location services domain. While 
there are similar requirements as suggested in the newspaper case, there are 
various aspects to geospatial data provenance that might be a bit different. 
Examples might be spatial accuracy, uncertainty, and error ellipses. The 
latter 2 elements are huge issues in the location services industry. FYI, 
the uncertainty work as captured in UnCertML is quite applicable to 
space-time in both location and in physics.

Anyway, there is an ISO document (19115-metadata) that I am trying to get 
permission to distribute to the document at no cost to the Provenance group. 
There are numerous elements in that document that are related to provenance 
of geospatial data.

Cheers

Carl


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Luc Moreau" <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: Bootstrapping the "Model Task Force"


> Hi Jim,
> Thanks for your feedback.
>
> In a first instance, it would be nice to discuss the general approach,
> since we seek to reach consensus on this, tomorrow at the teleconference.
>
> If approved, then I think that Paul intends to go through concepts one by 
> one
> (this will require probably more than tomorrow's call).
>
> To structure the email discussion, we will raise ISSUEs, for which W3C 
> provides
> some support, by tracking emails and linking them. ISSUE numbers appear
> in email titles, and all discussion threads are summarized  automatically.
> As an illustration, look at one of the ISSUEs raised in the rdf working 
> group
>  http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/35
>
> I hope it helps,
> Cheers,
> Luc
>
> On 05/04/2011 04:35 PM, Myers, Jim wrote:
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 18:20:37 UTC