- From: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 16:46:07 +0100
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- CC: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Tim, Paul and all, From what I understood from yesterday's call, we don't have to sync prov-o with prov-dm. Based on this assumption and based on our current list of prov-o starting-point terms in section 2, I listed things that need to updated in section 3.1 according to my access to [1] at 4.40pm UK time today. - In the updated diagram, it doesn't show prov:wasInvalidatedBy, prov:generatedAt, and prov:invalidatedAt. They are listed in section 2. This needs to be made consistent. We also miss examples for this. - The text in section 3.1 still mentions prov:wasStartedByActivity. - We don't have any explanation about invalidation properties, nor examples. [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/Overview.html I think the big inconsistent is now between section 3.1 and terms list in section 2. I don't know what the group decision is on this aspect. Cheers, Jun On 24/05/2012 10:03, Paul Groth wrote: > One thing to note here is that we are trying to synchronize prov-o and > prov-dm "core". So this may be worth waiting for the agreement on > what constitutes the core. > > Thanks > Paul > > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 2:48 AM, Timothy Lebo<lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: >> Jun, >> >> >> On May 23, 2012, at 4:06 AM, Jun Zhao wrote: >> >>> Hi Tim, >>> >>> I also updated the powerpoint in our old dropbox with a new starting-point terms slide. Where are your new SVG figures? >> >> The SVG figures are now linked from http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o >> (I recovered from my backup!) >> >>>>> PROV-ISSUE-379 (jzhao): Update provo html section 3.1 [PROV-O HTML] >>>>> >>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/379 >>>>> >>>>> Raised by: Jun Zhao >>>>> On product: PROV-O HTML >>>>> >>>>> The diagram and example in this section need to updated according to the updated ontology or the list of starting-point terms in section 2. >> >> Regarding the contents of this issue, could you be more specific about what you feel needs to be updated? >> If you see the disparities already, it's easier to fix them than to find them :-) >> >> Thanks, >> Tim >> >> >> > > >
Received on Friday, 25 May 2012 15:49:54 UTC