Re: W3C Provenance Working Group Charter - alternate version for discussion

I agree with Luc.
What actually confuses me a bit is the Provenance Exchange Language... are
we supposed to define a new syntax or reuse xml/rdf/owl? Is this language
refering to the core of terms that will be extended through profiles, or
will it be the mechanisms needed to transform some of the shortcut functions
identified in the mappings to OPM (an viceversa)?

Regards,
Daniel

2010/11/17 Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

>
> I am personally happy to talk about the "provenance of a resource", which I
> understand
> as the "provenance of the various states that prevail when it is
> accessed".  (I think others
> may not necessarily see it in the same way.)
>
> So, going back to the definition:
>
> Provenance of a resource is a record that describes entities and processes
> involved in producing and delivering or otherwise influencing that resource.
>
>
> To be more pedantic, I would write:
>
> Provenance of a resource is a record that describes entities and processes
> involved in producing and delivering or otherwise influencing STATES OF that
> resource.
>
> However, we tried to come up with a definition that was accessible ... I
> think this addition makes it less accessible.
> So, I don't think it is required to change our definition.
>
> Luc
>
>
> On 17/11/2010 17:36, Yolanda Gil wrote:
>
> Luc:
>
> That's right, but we did agree to the term "resource" in our definition of
> provenance [1].  We should be more clear about this, both in the definition
> and in the charter.
>
> Yolanda
>
>
>
> Yolanda Gil, USC/ISI
> +1-310-448-8794
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 17, 2010, at 8:09 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
> Yolanda,
>
> Resources on the Web can be stateful whereas artifacts (in OPM) are
> stateless.
> It would not be appropriate to replace artifact by resource.
>
> Simon's mapping of DC to OPM offers a nice mechanism to relate a stateful
> resource
> to its states/versions, i.e. artifacts.
>
> Luc
>
> On 17/11/10 15:53, Yolanda Gil wrote:
>
> Though I think we have already discussed referring to "resource" rather
> than artifact
>
>
>