- From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:52:42 +0100
- To: Curt Tilmes <Curt.Tilmes@nasa.gov>
- Cc: <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I generally agree with this. In fact, we could view the ability to represent provenance of collections defined in some other vocabulary as a yardstick for how generic/extensible PROV is. Thus, if we have a specific proposal it could be an extended example in the best practices rather than part of the standard itself. --James On Apr 19, 2012, at 3:48 PM, Curt Tilmes wrote: > On 04/19/2012 10:35 AM, Curt Tilmes wrote: >> Take what we have here, make it a Collection Provenance Model or >> something like that, and propose it separately as a middle layer on >> top of PROV, below all the "Provenance of XXX"s that will be needed >> for various domains, but leave it out of PROV-DM. > > To clarify: I'm not questioning whether or not collections are > important (they are) or whether or not we need standard ways of > handling them (we do). > > I'm simply questioning whether PROV-DM is the right place to do that, > and whether the complexity they add to the fundamental data model is > worth the benefit of specifying them here. > > Curt > > -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2012 14:53:19 UTC