W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-prov@w3.org > April 2010

Re: organizing the state of the art document

From: Paolo Missier <pmissier@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:49:38 +0100
Message-ID: <4BCF1082.7010407@cs.man.ac.uk>
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


>  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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:38:57 UTC