Re: PROV-O plan?

Daniel,

Thank you for filling in some of the discussion around the note.

I agree that we need to focus on aligning the documents. 
Further, I don't think the PROV-O meetings are the right place to complain about the DM. That should be done separately via the tracker and email list.



My question to the group is what process we should be using to make observable progress on the alignment?



Paolo and Luc,

I wonder if we could add pointers to PROV-O HTML sections from directly within the PROV-DM sections.
This would certainly assist the alignment, and give a straightforward TODO list for the PROV-O team.

Regards,
Tim




On Jan 10, 2012, at 5:40 AM, Daniel Garijo wrote:

> Hi Tim,
> my impression is that Stian noted that down because we were spending more time arguing about
> the DM than commiting to align both documents, which is what we to achieve.
> 
> Imo, discussing about DM is something that is going to happen during the alignement, and it is something
> necessary. However once we have detected the issue there is no point on discussing it entirely ourselves,
> we should raise a formal issue and keep on with the rest of the list. That is why I gave it a +1.
> 
> Thanks,
> Daniel
> 
> 2012/1/9 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
> PROV-O (via prov-wg),
> 
> I apologize for leaving before we finished today's telecon [1].
> 
> As I look through the notes, I'm concerned about the statement:
> 
> "+1 to focus more on ontology first - avoid wasted time on writing lots of documentation we then disagree on :) +1 (Daniel)"
> 
> 
> I'm concerned that focusing on "just" some OWL assertions will inhibit our progress.
> It is easier to agree upon things that are written down, with examples, and described from the perspectives of PROV-DM, RDF, and OWL.
> Any addition to the PROV-O ontology needs some discussion accompanying it, so that the PROV-O team (and others) can be convinced that it is a proper model.
> 
> For example, the qualified involvements proposal [2] seemed to catalyze the use of QualifiedInvolvements by prov-wg.
> After months of discussions, it unified the two competing approaches that were never written down.
> Unfortunately, no form of [2] is part of the official PROV-O discussion document [3].
> 
> The Accounts proposal [4] hasn't been as catalyzing, but at least we can monitor its progress.
> 
> As for concrete examples, [5] has not seen any prov-wg adoption for collecting PROV-O examples in our hg repository [6].
> 
> Further, when it _does_ come to the OWL assertions, my attempt to decompose the problem into smaller, manageable, ACTION-able pieces [6,7] has also been disregarded in favor of the traditional monolith [8] that nobody seems to want to touch.
> 
> 
> Since I've exhausted my approaches to contributing, I'm left with nothing but a question:
> 
>       How do you want me to help make progress?
> 
> Thanks,
> Tim Lebo
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2012-01-09#9._prov:steps_property_.28to_qualify_derivations.29_is_missing.
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Qualifed_Involvements_in_PROV-O
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-o-20111213/
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Using_graphs_to_model_Accounts
> [5] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PROV_OWL_ontology_component_examples
> [6] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/ontology/components
> [7] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PROV_OWL_ontology_components
> [8] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl
>