- From: Paolo Missier <pmissier@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:49:38 +0100
- To: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-xg-prov@w3.org" <public-xg-prov@w3.org>
Hi Paul & all I agree on the focus, in view of the ultimate goal of the group which is, in my understanding, to provide recommendations on the opportunity for a W3C WG -- and IMO this can only be based on technology gap analysis wrt requirements. Associating a task force to each /dimension/ may be a bit too fine-grained, maybe? the idea is good but management can be a concern. Maybe dimension group to start with, to see where it goes? At any rate, personally I am interested in management and some aspects of use --Paolo > Hi All, > > It sounded like we wanted to continue this discussion from the phone > call. I wanted to throw out a recommendation. > > First, I think it's not apparent what the goal of this document is. My > suggestion is, since there already exist several good reviews of the > state of the art, that instead we should focus on how existing > technologies meet the user requirements and the subsequent technical > requirements these pose. This is a bit different than a review because > it focuses more on the what's missing in terms of technology to meet > the requirements for provenance on the web. > > Given that goal, I would suggest to merge the two approaches that were > brought up on the last telecon. > > We should aim to develop a matrix that shows how different > technologies meet the technical requirements that we've gathered. > > I would suggest that each provenance dimension have a task force that > is responsible for listing the technologies and requirements for each > dimension and then recruiting people expert in each technology to > write how this technology fits with the requirements. For example, I > would expect someone like Paulo to give a good response for PML, or > James on DBNotes. We could also approach people outside the group to > fill out a form about their technology. It would be important that > some text would be attached to give justification for how the > technology meets a requirement. The task force would then be > responsible for integrating this text. > > Anyway, that's my proposal: focus on technology meeting requirements, > task forces ensuring that the matrix gets filled out with proper > justfication. > > Thoughts? > > Paul > >
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2010 14:50:14 UTC