- From: Paulo Pinheiro da Silva <paulo@utep.edu>
- Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:14:53 -0600
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@cs.rpi.edu>, Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>, "public-xg-prov@w3.org" <public-xg-prov@w3.org>
It is a shame indeed. > Shame that we have had public discussion for 1 year, and you have > written a document, in private, and you only release now, despite > our continuously asking for your input. It took me forever to understand OPM enough to be comfortable to talk about it as I am now. It would be much easier for me to discuss about OPM if I had more inputs regarding how OPM compares to PML. Regarding the fact of doing it privately, I please ask you to see this as an initial effort of coming up with something more substantial than just a superficial mapping between the languages. Otherwise, we would end up where we are right now in terms of truly understanding each other approaches. Many thanks, Paulo. > I am afraid I don't have time to read it before today's call! > > Luc > > On 10/15/2010 03:33 PM, Paulo Pinheiro da Silva wrote: >> Dear Luc el at., >> >> I like the work that has been done at the incubator. Like Deborah, I >> regret not participating as much as I would like -- for different >> reasons than Deborah I have also had a difficult year. >> >> Concerning the bias mentioned in Deborah's message, I see that our PML >> group has put a lot of effort to understand OPM and I cannot see a >> similar effort from the OPM group to understand work that has been done >> at the PML side. For example, I put together a collection of PML papers >> together with some highlights that are related to the first scenario and >> the response was that previous work was done in the OPM side as well. >> Well, I read all the documents that were cited as a response that >> similar work was done with OPM (and OPM predecessors) and my conclusion >> is that some of the unanswered questions (referred to as provenance >> gaps) are still open questions in the OPM side of the world. >> >> Anyway, I do not see OPM as a subset of PML and my response to this is >> in the form of an article submission to the JWS special edition on >> provenance run by Yolanda and Paul. >> >> http://www.cs.utep.edu/paulo/papers/PinheirodaSilva_JWS_2010.pdf >> >> Anyway, I am releasing this article submission as a tech report as a way >> to substantiate my claim the URI for the tech report is above. Please >> note that this report is just my opinion and not an opinion of the PML >> group. I recognize that further effort needs to be done to fully >> understand the mapping between OPM, PML, and the many other important >> provenance notations out there and that is why I cannot understand this >> suggestion of us of recommending OPM as in the draft put out by Paul >> Groth. >> >> Many thanks, >> Paulo. >> >>> Deborah, >>> >>> I think we should not forget the work that the incubator has done. >>> I do not understand your statement "there is strong a bias when one >>> starts with one >>> and tries to shoehorn in the others." >>> >>> Let's be concrete, I suppose you are talking about PML, >>> - what is the bias in OPM that makes it difficult to shoehorn PML >>> concepts >>> >>> (ditto for other provenance languages). >>> >>> The mapping exercise, to my knowledge, did not identify any. Please >>> correct me if >>> I am wrong. >>> >>> This issue needs to be nailed down. I am happy to have a teleconference >>> at some other >>> mutually convenient time. But, we need to be able to justify our >>> position. It's important >>> to do it soon, because we can't write a final report properly with >>> knowing what the conclusions >>> are. >>> >>> Regarding the "fast" aspect, I think it is crucial too. Otherwise, >>> somebody else >>> will do it, de-facto way! >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Luc >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/15/2010 02:33 PM, Deborah McGuinness wrote: >>>> On 10/15/2010 8:53 AM, Paul Groth wrote: >>>>> Hi Deborah, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your response. This is exactly the sort of discussion we >>>>> wanted to start. >>>>> >>>>> Luc and I wrote the proposal with the notion that we wanted a fast >>>>> working group. >>>> Fast working groups are good but I think we should focus on the >>>> outcome rather than fast. it is not that fast precludes quality but >>>> we should not focus on fast and have that preclude other options that >>>> may be considered more representative of the broader provenance >>>> community. >>>>> With that in mind we thought it would be good to start with something >>>>> already existing and not develop a whole new model. Additionally, we >>>>> think that OPM is already a subset of what's out there already >>>>> including PML. I think the DAML+OIL comparison is not so apt because >>>>> OPM was already developed through a community process. >>>> Actually I think the DAML+OIL model is quite apt. >>>> DAML was developed by a large DARPA program over years with many >>>> participants. >>>> OIL also was developed by a consortium of people as well over time >>>> (and actually there was a little bit of overlap in the authors but it >>>> was relatively small). >>>> Both grew up at about the same time. >>>> While this is looking back, I would venture to say that if either went >>>> in as a proposed standard without engaging the other community, either >>>> would have had a VERY hard time getting through a standards body >>>> DESPITE the fact that each had a significant community who had worked >>>> on them. >>>> What happened was that an adhoc US/UK working group self formed to >>>> put something together that reflected what the authors thought >>>> captured the essence of both. >>>> >>>> OPM was emerging in approximately the same timeframe as some of the >>>> other contender provenance models. I agree of course that it came out >>>> of a community but it did not include much participation from some >>>> other communities. >>>> >>>> I think we need to look at what is out there now and determine what >>>> the starting point should be and I do not think that OPM reflects the >>>> starting point for some of the other communities. >>>>> Furthermore, as we say in the draft, OPM is the starting point >>>> My objection is to taking OPM as the starting point. >>>> I think there is too strong a bias when one starts with one and tries >>>> to shoehorn in the others. >>>> >>>> Paulo in particular had raised a number of issues when he was trying >>>> to look more deeply at connections and embedded assumptions. >>>> >>>>> and would change over the coarse of the working group. >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, since you have a lot of experience on these working groups, I >>>>> was wondering how you think we could design the charter to make >>>>> production of a recommendation as fast as possible with the approach >>>>> you have in mind? >>>> I agree that having one starting point and refining may be considered >>>> to be a fast approach but if one really thinks there may be >>>> significant changes, then that may not be the case. I think though >>>> that it could easily be interpreted as biasing the outcome towards >>>> that starting point (and i would interpret it that way and would be >>>> unhappy). >>>> I think though we need to be open to other starting points so i think >>>> we have to be open to other starting points. >>>> >>>> I see two routes that could be taken (and of course there are more). >>>> 1 - write a charter now that takes starting points as input >>>> 2 - follow the owl model and form an adhoc working group whose aim it >>>> is to come up with a joint submission for the starting point. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Also, at least from my reading, it seems that you would endorse >>>>> having a a working group work for a standard provenance model. Is >>>>> that correct? >>>> I support a working group to come up with a recommended provenance >>>> model. >>>> I do NOT support a working group that takes a single starting point >>>> and aims to refine that one to come up with the recommendation. >>>>> >>>>> thanks, >>>>> Paul >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Deborah McGuinness wrote: >>>>>> Greetings, >>>>>> Thanks for the work on the draft charter. >>>>>> I am sending this quickly because i just read the beginning and have >>>>>> a significant problem with the slant of the charter with the >>>>>> position of >>>>>> "The goal of this working group is to refine the Open Provenance >>>>>> Model" >>>>>> and thought I should air this immediately upon seeing the draft. >>>>>> >>>>>> I strongly believe that the charter of a working group that would >>>>>> end up with a provenance recommendation should start with the >>>>>> contender models and take the best aspects from many of them RATHER >>>>>> than starting with one model and refining it. I strongly oppose the >>>>>> position that the charter should take any single model and work to >>>>>> refine it. I would propose rather that this group would work like >>>>>> the recent RIF working group or others where contender starting >>>>>> points were submitted or like the OWL working group where two >>>>>> contenders emerged - DAML and OIL and members from each side worked >>>>>> to create a submission - DAML+OIL that truly took elements from both >>>>>> languages and ended up with a joint proposal rather than this way >>>>>> that just takes a single model as a starting point. >>>>>> >>>>>> There was some disappointment in the group when we chose to map the >>>>>> other contender models to a single model, but most if not all >>>>>> understood that decision from the perspective of time. I can not >>>>>> say though that i (or i expect others who were disappointed) could >>>>>> go along with this position in a proposed charter. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am sorry that this comes from someone who did not participate >>>>>> nearly as much as I had hoped to. >>>>>> I had an extremely bad year with my mother's multiple >>>>>> hospitalizations and general overwhelming health problems and her >>>>>> subsequent passing. I simply have had no choice but to put >>>>>> everything other than family health at a much lower priority. >>>>>> >>>>>> Deborah >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/15/2010 7:58 AM, Paul Groth wrote: >>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Today on the call we are scheduled to talk about preparations for >>>>>>> the final report. Luc and I feel that to write a compelling final >>>>>>> report we should be clear about exactly what the report should >>>>>>> recommend. There has been some consensus that a working group >>>>>>> should be formed around the recommendations extracted from the >>>>>>> scenarios ( >>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Recommendations_for_scenarios). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To that end, we have prepared a draft working group charter ( >>>>>>> http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/lavm/draft-charter.html ). We note >>>>>>> this is only *our own* proposal and we see this as a starting point >>>>>>> for discussion within the group. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We look forward to any comments, questions, thoughts about this >>>>>>> proposal. We hope this helps the group to continue to coalesce >>>>>>> around a way forward. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Paul and Luc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >
Received on Friday, 15 October 2010 15:15:26 UTC