- From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 13:02:41 +0100
- To: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Paul, Maybe I misspoke; I wasn't implying any criticism. The example itself is fine. The description of processing steps and questions seems to be a prose form of the graph which seemed to correspond to the OPM way of describing things. I think this is quite natural too, but from the discussion Thursday I got the impression that not everyone agrees. If there is further disagreement about the language used to describe "processing steps" and "provenance questions" or the mapping of the concepts, then I would like to see concrete counterproposals rather than people simply saying that "language X has a different/better way of doing it" without giving details. It probably isn't necessary that the counterproposals be formulated in terms of a current language, but I don't see why it would hurt, as long as anyone who wants to is free to contribute. If everyone is happy with the current example and illustrations, then I am too and there is no problem - I may have jumped the gun in this discussion myself. --James On May 10, 2011, at 12:34 PM, Paul Groth wrote: > Hi James, > > I thought it would be good to see if we can agree on an example and > the illustrations of the concepts from the charter. > > I'm wary of bringing in any current languages in at this stage > because of the confusion it caused last week. I just worry that it > jumps the gun. > > I would like to know how the example has an OPM flavour. I wrote it > to be generic but I may have subconscious bias. Can you let me know > how we can change it to ensure it doesn't imply anything? > > However, if others in the group want to pursue this that's fine with > me. > > Paul > > > > James Cheney wrote: >> Hi Paul and others, >> >> I meant to respond earlier to expand on what I meant by "examples" in >> the telecon on Thursday (and because I will unfortunately miss this >> Thursday's). >> >> I think the example and concept illustrations are a good starting >> point. >> I agree that it's good to employ high-level examples and document how >> the examples illustrate the concepts, but I think it would really >> help >> me (and perhaps others) to have concrete examples of how the >> different >> current proposals would handle examples like the data journalism >> one, so >> that any disagreement can be discussed in concrete terms. >> >> For example, the original "data journalism example" included an OPM- >> like >> graph and discussion that made it fairly clear how the example >> would be >> handled in an OPM style. During the telecon, I think Paulo was >> arguing >> that other languages such as PML would interpret various terms >> differently, leading to a different interpretation of the concepts. I >> think the current example/illustration also has this flavor, so I >> would >> like to see what would change if a PML or other style were used >> instead. >> >> I don't pretend to be an expert on any of the provenance >> languages/vocabularies being considered so far (my work has been >> mostly >> on provenance in databases, where there is a lot more variability >> between different techniques). Are there people who are experts on >> other >> techniques (PML, Provenir, Provenance Vocabulary) who could add >> examples >> of how they'd handle the data journalism example to the wiki? I don't >> mid trying to do so myself, but as a non-expert on the other >> techniques >> it is not clear that what I would come up with would be useful. >> >> --James >> >> On May 10, 2011, at 10:30 AM, Paul Groth wrote: >> >>> Hi All: >>> >>> I asked for feedback on the proposed data journalism example [1] by >>> Monday. There was not a lot of discussion so I hope it's safe to >>> assume that the example was considered to be a good start. >>> >>> To help the discussion get going, I've put up a page [2] that lists >>> each concept from the charter and illustration of it from the >>> example. >>> >>> It would be good to see if we agree whether these illustrations >>> actually illustrate the concepts. >>> >>> regards, >>> Paul >>> >>> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceExample >>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/CharterConceptsIllustration >>> >>> >> >> > -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2011 12:03:06 UTC