- From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:28:37 +0000
- To: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
- Cc: "<public-xg-prov@w3.org>" <public-xg-prov@w3.org>
Hi all, Just to play devil's advocate, here are some comments. Maybe some of these were answered already through the discussion Friday that I missed. 1. The deliverables are numbered D1-D9, but there is no D5. 2. There are a lot of deliverables for 2 years: 5 recommendations and 3 notes. My understanding is recommendations require a longer lead time and public comment period, so producing 5 recommendations for a 2-year process seems like a lot. By comparison, have a look at the RDB2RDF charter/WG: it has only 5 deliverables with 1-2 of them being recommendations, and was also meant to run in 2 years, and I understand that that has still been a slog. 3. What is the difference between having an XML "serialization" (D6) vs. an OWL/RDF/etc. "formal model" (D2)? Why do both (or either) need to be standardized? 4. Why do we have both a "formal model" and "formal semantics" deliverable? What is the difference, and what are the expected benefits of formalization? 5. Likewise, why do D4 (accessing and querying) and D7 (mappings) need to be recommendations/standards, rather than notes? I can see that the access issue might require some future architectural/protocol standardization. But is that something that can be done by a WG unilaterally? For querying and for the mappings I am not sure I understand the rationale for standardization. These could perhaps be sub-deliverables of the "primer" or "cookbook". Overall, the current list gives me the impression of a last-minute rush to include everything that might be useful. This inclusiveness is good, but I worry that it might wind up overcommitting the WG or making the plan look too ambitious for the time available. My feeling is that the fewer discrete "tasks", the better for focus and flexibility, since there is a start-up cost to each deliverable. I also wonder if we can estimate how much work the different parts will take, and which are considered "must be recommendation" vs. "decide later" and "required" vs. "optional". I understand that some thought about this was already done in the various WG charter drafts so maybe it is just a matter of transferring these to the wiki. --James On Nov 22, 2010, at 8:37 PM, Paul Groth wrote: > Hi All, > > The deliverable list we agreed upon on Friday is now on the wiki at: > > http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Proposal_for_a_Working_Group_on_Provenance > > Thanks, > Paul > > > -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2010 10:29:13 UTC