- From: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 13:21:29 +0100
- To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi James, Ok, now I understand. I completely agree. Comments on the language used are important and the more concrete the comments the better. I think we are trying to get agreement on the wording of the example before the telecon. thanks, Paul James Cheney wrote: > 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2011 12:22:02 UTC