Re: PROV-ISSUE-87 (Model-concepts-formalism): Formalism used is not explained, not applied to concepts [Conceptual Model]

Hi Graham,

I think this is  a key point, and I agree with it.

On 05/09/11 22:04, Graham Klyne wrote:
> To make the PASN worthwhile, I think it needs to be *much* easier to 
> understand, to the point that it becomes easier to write a provenance 
> assertion in PASN rather than in RDF.  (Rather like the way it's 
> easier to write OWN class expressions using the "Manchester" or 
> similar syntax rather than expressing them in RDF.)  Currently, the 
> exposition of PASN isn't satisfying this criterion, IMO. 

Could you tell us what you would like to see, which would make it 
understandable, and meet that criterion?

In particular, when you say that you don't how to interpret the syntax, 
do you mean formal
interpretation? or do you mean something intuitive?


Received on Monday, 5 September 2011 21:39:37 UTC