- From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
- Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:12:44 +0200
- To: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAExK0Dd5F064D=0tt=vBjWvwWnpZddKz=0Bvy9hJUG_+Zbq-7w@mail.gmail.com>
I support to drop it too. PROV-O sounds better. Best, Daniel 2011/10/2 Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk> > 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<http://www.w3.org/2011/01/prov-wg-charter> >> >> >> > >
Received on Monday, 3 October 2011 09:13:12 UTC