- From: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 10:46:53 +0100
- To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On 30/09/2011 12:29, Luc Moreau wrote: > > Dear all, > > The charter [1] lists deliverables D1 'conceptual model' and D2 > 'formal model'. > > For the former, we moved away from the 'conceptual model' terminology, > and we refer to a data model PROV-DM. > > For the latter, we seem to have endless confusion about what it really > means, and what the difference is with > semantics. Also, as Graham pointed out, it is not obvious why a > developer would have to look at a formal model > document. > > 1. Given this confusion, Paul and I would like to propose that we drop > the terminology 'Formal Model'. > Can you express your support or disagreement for this proposal? I would support this. To Be honest, I was never conformable with the title "Formal model". Also, I think that PROV-ASN in the conceptual model gives enough crisp details to understand the model for people who wants to know more. > > 2. Assuming we adopt the proposal, what should the document title > become, we leave it to authors/editors to decide. > Group members may also want to make suggestions, and we could vote > on them during teleconference. > > To get the ball rolling: 'semantic web > representation/model/serialization of provenance' Provenance Ontology, or Provenance OWL Ontology, given that so far we focused on OWL. Thanks, khalid > > Cheers, > Luc > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/01/prov-wg-charter > >
Received on Sunday, 2 October 2011 09:47:18 UTC