Re: Primer proposal


I agree with the goal of an early / incomplete release, mainly because in my experience, editing the primer alongside the model 
provides a reality check which I believe we really need at this point.

  On the topic of additional scenarios/examples:
    it would be good if we could identify early adopters of the model, i.e., groups and projects that are ready to challenge the 
model against their own scenarios and provenance modelling requirements (within the scope of the group's charter, of course).  I am 
happy to divert this part to the Connection TF, if this is where it belongs?  But I am not talking about implementations, just 
projects that are ready to adopt an authoritative model, as soon as one exists, so they can move forward on the provenance side of 
their agenda.
   As Graham, Stian, Khalid  and others know, the EU wf4Ever project [1] is in this predicament. I assume we would be happy to be 
early adopters, providing a new realistic scenario.

Regards, -Paolo


On 9/5/11 9:37 PM, Simon Miles wrote:
> Hello,
> In the last telecon, I was given an action to propose how to proceed
> with the primer.
> I propose that a primer document be written for release with the other
> public deliverables, but that it should not be expected to cover the
> whole model. It will include one or multiple examples, as best suits
> clear explanation, and high level intuition about the model that aims
> to be easy to understand rather than normative. The examples will be
> primarily based around the provenance of web-accessible documents, and
> we will start from, but not be committed to, the data journalism
> example. The coding of the examples will use the formal model
> ontology. The file example currently in the conceptual model will be
> moved to the primer, but may or may not be included in the released
> version.
> The rationale for the proposal is as follows.
> I think there needs to be guidance somewhere, otherwise documents
> released will be hard for others to review. Including this only in the
> conceptual and formal model documents separately will break up the
> guidance. Including only the conceptual model without some (real)
> serialisation makes it harder to see how it will be used, and the
> formal model provides a simple, readable and W3C-appropriate
> serialisation as Turtle snippets. While existing documents require
> high level intuition and examples themselves, they should aim to be
> brief and normative, which can conflict with giving best guidance.
> Putting primer information on the wiki means it will get lost and/or
> messy, and would be hard to release with deliverables. The primer can
> aim to cover all or most of the model, but recognising that the model
> is still evolving, we should be prepared to cut out of the
> September/October release anything that may not match the version of
> the model released, or is too contentious or too minimal to be useful.
> The documents are being released in a particular context, the W3C, and
> so will be most easily understood if the examples are around web
> resources, with web accessible documents such as web pages being the
> most commonly observed case.
> I understand the concerns of creating a primer while the model itself
> still evolves, but preparing the primer could help in stabilising the
> model both now and after the first release, as external reviews would
> hopefully be more about the model itself rather than the way it is
> written if a primer is available.
> Thanks,
> Simon

-----------  ~oo~  --------------
Paolo Missier -,
School of Computing Science, Newcastle University,  UK

Received on Tuesday, 6 September 2011 08:33:32 UTC