Re: proposal: drop 'formal model' terminology

I support to drop it too. PROV-O sounds better.
Best,
Daniel

2011/10/2 Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>

> On 30/09/2011 12:29, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> The charter [1] lists deliverables D1 'conceptual model' and D2  'formal
>> model'.
>>
>> For the former, we moved away from the 'conceptual model' terminology, and
>> we refer to a data model PROV-DM.
>>
>> For the latter, we seem to have endless confusion about what it really
>> means, and what the difference is with
>> semantics.   Also, as Graham pointed out, it is not obvious why a
>> developer would have to look at a formal model
>> document.
>>
>> 1. Given this confusion, Paul and I would like to propose that we drop the
>> terminology 'Formal Model'.
>>   Can you express your support or disagreement for this proposal?
>>
>
> I would support this. To Be honest, I was never conformable with the title
> "Formal model".
> Also, I think that PROV-ASN in the conceptual model gives enough crisp
> details to understand the model for people who wants to know more.
>
>
>> 2. Assuming we adopt the proposal, what should the document title become,
>> we leave it to authors/editors to decide.
>>   Group members may also want to make suggestions, and we could vote on
>> them during teleconference.
>>
>>   To get the ball rolling: 'semantic web representation/model/**serialization
>> of provenance'
>>
>
> Provenance Ontology, or Provenance OWL Ontology, given that so far we
> focused on OWL.
>
> Thanks, khalid
>
>
>
>> Cheers,
>> Luc
>>
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/01/**prov-wg-charter<http://www.w3.org/2011/01/prov-wg-charter>
>>
>>
>>
>
>