W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > May 2012

RE: Proposal on PROV-DM reorganization

From: Miles, Simon <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 18:33:59 +0100
To: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FE37361E55FDC343A27E119DFB7785BB40D264F2E5@KCL-MAIL04.kclad.ds.kcl.ac.uk>
Hello Paul, all,

I support the proposal.

As I've expressed in telecons, I'm sceptical about whether splitting the DM document into two would actually make for something simpler. From the perspective as a primer editor, I note that it could make the primer less friendly if each example contained concepts specified in multiple documents, as would be inevitable given that advanced concepts would almost always be used in conjunction with core ones. It also would not make sense to me to divide the primer into core and advanced sections reflecting the DM, in preference to a narrative introducing each concept in turn in a way that keeps the learning curve gentle. While the needs of the primer clearly should not drive how the DM is organised, this suggests to me that too much artificial separation might lead to confusion for someone newly learning PROV more generally.

I can see the value of have a simple core, however, and the proposed structure seems a good rearrangement.

I also think Curt's suggestion of 'extended' rather than 'advanced' better reflects what we mean.


Dr Simon Miles
Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166

Determining the trustworthiness of new electronic contracts:
From: Curt Tilmes [Curt.Tilmes@nasa.gov]
Sent: 20 May 2012 12:07
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Proposal on PROV-DM reorganization

On 05/20/2012 06:01 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
> During last week's telcon [1] the chairs were tasked to come-up with
> a proposal that tried to reflect consensus on reorganization of the
> data model. This would take into account both Graham's proposal [2]
> as well as the WG discusion and prior agreements.
> We've come up with with the following proposal:
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDM_ConsensusProposal
> We hope this reflects a consensus with the working group and
> something we could proceed on. Is this a good foundation to proceed?

I support keeping one document for this stuff (I think with
constraints, we've already separated out some of the most difficult to
grasp 'advanced concepts' there and I also support moving collections
out of DM.)

When I first try to explain this to people, I start with the diagram.
Perhaps we could move it to the start of section 2.1 instead of the

I like pushing bundles/collections out of the "core" section.  I think
that addresses some of Graham's concerns.

I also like reorganizing section 2 while keeping the component
structure in section 4.

I like the term "core" for section 2.1, and the term "extended" for
2.2.  I think they aren't so advanced -- they just go beyond the core.

Received on Sunday, 20 May 2012 17:35:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:14 UTC