Re: PROV-ISSUE-253: misc issues with the ontology [mapping prov-dm <-> prov-o]

Hi James

No offence taken.

I think we have to be flexible. In some cases, timeliness is important, and not all details can be worked out. So, just flagging (perceived) problems is important, and should be allowed.

The mapping has proved to be a very effective tool to work out details.  Before reaching that stage, sometimes, a simple conversation between teams can really help. The tracker (and this product) can help conduct this conversation. 

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton 
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom

On 20 Feb 2012, at 18:51, "James Cheney" <> wrote:

> Belatedly, sorry if my response was unnecessarily abrasive.  I read the issue email well after I wrote the email about guidelines for presenting issues on the mapping.  
> My hope was that looking at the mapping makes it easier to both see and constructively discuss mismatches between the DM and ontology.  Nevertheless, many of the mismatches are things that can be handled by changing one of the products and then (if needed) updating the mapping, but can't be fixed just by changing the mapping.  The reason I wrote the guidelines was that I want to avoid having the mapping become a dumping ground for issues that really "belong" to other products, so that we can focus on issues that really need dialogue between PROV-DM and PROV-O authors/editors.  
> My suggestion is to use the mapping product to discuss issues for which it isn't a priori clear whether the ontology or the DM needs to change, and "dispatch" other issues to the appropriate product.  I am happy to change the guidelines if you think my approach can be improved.  It seems that most of the issues you raised were really about the ontology, so I am happy with your response of re-raising against the ontology.
> --James
> On Feb 17, 2012, at 3:04 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>> Hi James,
>> As I indicated in my preamble, I didn't know whether this issue had to be raised against the mapping product or not.
>> I think many of the issues are about the ontology itself.
>> I am afraid I read your email today, well after I raised the issue.
>> My primary aim was timeliness since the owl ontology needs to be fully
>> written before we can talk about alignment in any significant way.
>> With hindsight, this should have been raised against the ontology, which I am doing now.
> -- 
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2012 06:36:17 UTC