Re: organizing the state of the art document

Hi Jun and all,

I think you're right that defining the matrix is difficult but I also 
think we already have quite a few technical requirements to work with. I 
think the task forces should be responsible for taking those technical 
requirements making them consistent with the dimension and as you say 
including information from the literature.

+1 for Paolo's technology gap phrase.

Looking forward to the discussion this afternoon,
Paul


Jun Zhao wrote:
> Hi Paul, Paolo, and all,
>
>
> Paolo Missier wrote:
>> 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 
>
> Or even to people who are interested in searching for technologies to 
> suit their provenance requirements.
>
>
> -- 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? 
>
> Paolo, what do you mean by /dimension group/? Do you mean the top 
> three dimensions, i.e. content, management and use? The initial idea 
> of having task forces for each dimension meant exactly this level of 
> granularity. Sorry if the message became misleading in the telecom.
>
> A good thing to use wiki for creating such document is that nobody is 
> excluded from anything. One can also chip in and check the progress 
> and direction of others.
>
> As we are all volunteers to the group, I felt it was absolutely 
> necessary to have someone dedicating their time to think carefully how 
> to organize and coordinate things. This someone can be different 
> people at different development stage, given the time scale of 
> individuals. Sub-tasking the writing of the document could increase 
> focus and reduce efforts, to some extent.
>
> [...]
>
>>> Given that goal, I would suggest to merge the two approaches that 
>>> were brought up on the last telecon. 
>
> +1
>
>>> We should aim to develop a matrix that shows how different 
>>> technologies meet the technical requirements that we've gathered. 
>
> Matrix is a good idea. Defining the matrix is the most difficult.
>>> 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 
>
> It sounds like that before reviewing the state-of-the-art, we will 
> need to start from reviewing the requirement gathering and tease out 
> the technical requirements?
>
>>> 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. 
>
> It is a group/community effort, and this is how it should be done.
>>> Anyway, that's my proposal: focus on technology meeting 
>>> requirements, task forces ensuring that the matrix gets filled out 
>>> with proper justfication. 
>
> Are the existing provenance reviews only getting combined in when 
> filling in the matrix? Would they also help us with defining the matrix?
>
> cheers,
>
> Jun

Received on Friday, 23 April 2010 08:50:22 UTC