- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 08:39:04 -0400
- To: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
I've renamed "core" to "simple" over the past two weeks. Regarding "Note", I think that it is safe to keep it as "simple" because it doesn't bring any confusion with the other constructs. It's just one property and one class that doesn't link to anything else. I don't think "popularity of use" should be the dominant factor of our grouping decisions. We should orient along the simple - to - complex spectrum. FWIW, the automated cross-sectioning permits us to partition the class and property lists in as many groups as we want. I was considering having a "collections" group, too. Which is rather detailed and seems worthy of a separate view. Regards, Tim On Mar 16, 2012, at 7:21 AM, Jun Zhao wrote: > Luc, > > We presumed core are the things most people would use when they publish simple provenance statements, while additional are for more niche cases. > > Does it make sense to you? > > -- Jun > > On 16/03/2012 10:59, Luc Moreau wrote: >> Hi Jun, >> >> Can i turn back the question you asked about prov-dm: what is the >> meaning of core vs additional? >> I thought we wanted to stay away from this kind of terminology. >> >> Luc >> >> On 03/16/2012 10:16 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>> Should it be a core term or additional term? >> > > >
Received on Friday, 16 March 2012 12:39:39 UTC