Re: Proposal on PROV-DM reorganization

Paul,

Thanks for looking at a way to bridge Graham's proposal with the current organization.

I think that a combination of the current organization and Graham's will be the best result - both have very good qualities.

1)
I think one document is best - don't confuse the issue by "which document is it in". Too many W3C specs do this and it's confusing.

2)
I think that "components" needs to stay as an important organizational principle.

3)
Graham's list in section 1.5 is a good "core" and reflects most of what I cover in my PROV elevator speeches (and napkins).

4)
Splitting Graham's 1.5 up into "Entities and Activities" versus "Agents, Association, Attribution, and Responsibility" would help tremendously.

5)
I'd like to see Plan as part of "Association" instead of in "sub typing". The fact that it is an entity is secondary to the fact that it's an elaboration of Association (how the Agent did it).

6)
"full derivation" and "full association" are nice phrasings. I think we've finally nailed the incremental derivation (wasDerivedBy, Derivation, += hadActivity, += hadUsage, += hadGeneration).

7)
+1 for term "extended" beyond a "core"

-Tim




On May 20, 2012, at 6:01 AM, Paul Groth wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> 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?
> 
> Thanks
> Paul
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-05-17
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDM_Proposal_for_restructuring
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 20 May 2012 20:31:57 UTC