- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 21:48:47 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Jun, Currently, all constructs in the common section can be expressed in terms of those in core. I appreciate this is not written, but it's not clear this organization is going to remain (especially following your comments). Again, suggestions on how to structure are welcome. Having all the terms in a single section would make this too long. Ultimately, we need a proposal for a better structure to change it. I am not trying to defend the current structure, but I don't have anything better to offer. The idea of having a proper core and a separate profile (with common relations) was discarded early on. This may be revisited if articulated well. Suggestions, again, welcome! Luc On 21/02/12 21:32, Jun Zhao wrote: > Hi Luc and all, > > On 21/02/2012 21:15, Jun Zhao wrote: >> I understand better that you are more looking for feedback on the >> re-structuring. At this stage, I am still curious to know what you mean >> by "core" and "common". >> >> Luc: "Regarding the split core vs common relations, this is becoming the >> 4th iteration on the model, and no suggestion has been made about what >> should be moved from one to the other. Do you have concrete >> suggestions?" >> >> And there are also wording of "main" in the current draft: >> >> "This section provides an overview of the main elements and relations of >> the PROV data model. " >> >> These are editorial, but a precise understanding about "core", "common" >> or "main" might also impact on the structuring. > > I know there are sections using the terms of core and common. But what > do we mean by that? And what purpose do they serve? There are no > particular explanation about them in the current doc and it's not > entirely clear to me. > > -- Jun > >
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2012 21:49:19 UTC