Re: Proposal on PROV-DM reorganization

HI Graham,

Thanks for the constructive comments. I think we are approaching
consensus, which is great. Brief responses in-line

1) I'll let the editors Luc and Paolo comment on this one. This seems
doable from my perspective but I don't know what the effort would be.
2) This also seems like a good idea and I think others have commented
positively on having the diagram upfront
3) Again, I think I'll let the editor respond but you make a good argument.
4) I think there's consensus that "advanced" is not the right term.
5) Modularity + 1
6) My tendency would to be think that cross referencing is always nice

Thanks again for your quick response!
Paul

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Re: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDM_ConsensusProposal
>
> I think this proposal is an improvement, though it goes less far than I
> personally would choose.  I would still prefer a stand-alone document covering
> the core patterns, but there is apparently no appetite for that within the
> working group so I shall not push that point.
>
> Beyond that, here are some specific suggestions relating to your proposal:
>
> 1. I'd prefer to see core patterns as a separate top level section rather than a
> sub-section of the overview.  I feel that would help to convey its role as a
> self-contained set of related ideas around which the others structures and terms
> can be used as needed.
>
> 2. I'd like the diagram to be at the *start* of the core patterns, not at the
> end.  I believe it can provide a mental framework for a reader to relate the
> concepts as they are described in the ensuing sections.  I'd also suggest the
> diagram (per current DM) be revised to be visually styled more like the one in
> the PROV-O document.  (I'll help with that if asked.)
>
> 3. I would not separate Entities/Activities and Derivation into separate
> sub-sections.  When we talk about using provenance in applications, I note that
> we most commonly talk about a "provenance trace" - and it is the interconnection
> of entities, activities, generation and usage that gives us derivation, which in
> my perception is a central element of a provenance trace.  Thus, I would suggest
> presenting these concepts together, then introducing agents and associated
> inter-relationships in a separate sub-section.  I think this is what Tim
> suggested in the last teleconference.
>
> 4. I'm not sure that "advanced" is the best term for features that are not part
> of the core pattern.  I can live with it, but I'll also try and come up with
> some alternatives.
>
> 5. I'm all for looking to improve modularity of the design, as you also mention
> in your proposal.
>
> 6. I'm not sure that it really adds any value to mark core patterns throughout
> the document as you suggest.  Once a reader has internalized the core patterns,
> I think they're pretty obvious when they occur.
>
> #g
> --
>
>
> On 20/05/2012 11:01, 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
>>



-- 
--
Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
Assistant Professor
Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group
Artificial Intelligence Section
Department of Computer Science
VU University Amsterdam

Received on Monday, 21 May 2012 12:15:05 UTC