<--
| |||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||
> > | Provenance Data Model LegacyOriginal concept in Observation data model IVOA note (2005) | ||||||||||||||||||
Deleted: | |||||||||||||||||||
< < | * Original concept in Observation data model IVOA note (2005) | ||||||||||||||||||
The basic concepts of this model have been discussed as early as 2002/2004. It gave birth to the Spectral data model and the characterisation data model. The draft for the full Observation model became an IVOA note in 2005. The concept of provenance was introduced in this note. | |||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||
< < | * Motivation and use cases | ||||||||||||||||||
> > | Motivation and use cases | ||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||
< < | The motivation and use cases for a provenance data model have been discussed at most of the Interop meetings between 2006 and 2012 with evolution of the concept: | ||||||||||||||||||
> > | The motivation and use cases for a provenance data model have been discussed at most of the Interop meetings between 2006 and 2012 with evolution of the concept: | ||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||
< < | There were splinter meetings on provenance in Baltimore, Garching and Nara. No trace has been left about this. But they have been opportunities to discover requirements from newcomers in the game. The same happened at EURO-VO meetings in the same period. | ||||||||||||||||||
> > | There were splinter meetings on provenance in Baltimore, Garching and Nara. No trace has been left about this. But they have been opportunities to discover requirements from newcomers in the game. The same happened at EURO-VO meetings in the same period. | ||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||
> > | First xml attempts | ||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||
< < | * First xml attempts | ||||||||||||||||||
> > | Attempts were made to serialize provenance details. The goal was to demonstrate the aibility of the project. | ||||||||||||||||||
Deleted: | |||||||||||||||||||
< < | Attempts were made to serialize provenance details. The goal was to demonstrate the aibility of the project. | ||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||
You can also look directly at the xml schema and the xml example prototyped in this period. They are not consistent however. | |||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||
< < | |||||||||||||||||||
> > | UML diagram | ||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||
< < | * UML diagram | ||||||||||||||||||
> > | According to IVOA rules at that time a Data Model had to be exposed with an UML schema. In 2010 it was considered time to try to build one. | ||||||||||||||||||
Deleted: | |||||||||||||||||||
< < | According to IVOA rules at that time a Data Model had to be exposed with an UML schema. In 2010 it was considered time to try to build one. | ||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||
< < | * Sao Paulo review (October 2012) | ||||||||||||||||||
> > | Sao Paulo review (October 2012) | ||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||
< < | In a dedicated splinter meeting at this interop an attempt was made to relaunch the effort. There was a lot of use cases summarized in the Introduction talk as well as a summary of the previous technological attempts. There were talks by Nikos from Marseille (caclulator), ArnoldRots and KristinRiebe, but unfortunately they are lost. A the end of the meeting MarkusDemleitner concluded that the approach followed so far was definetly too ambitious and we had to start with revised ambitions and more stable technology. This started at the Heidelberg meeting in May 2013. | ||||||||||||||||||
> > | In a dedicated splinter meeting at this interop an attempt was made to relaunch the effort. There was a lot of use cases summarized in the Introduction talk as well as a summary of the previous technological attempts. There were talks by Nikos from Marseille (calculator), ArnoldRots and KristinRiebe, but unfortunately they are lost. A the end of the meeting MarkusDemleitner concluded that the approach followed so far was definitely too ambitious and we had to start with revised ambitions and more stable technology. This started at the Heidelberg meeting in May 2013. | ||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||
< < | * Conclusion | ||||||||||||||||||
> > | Conclusion | ||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||
< < | Why was all this so slow and eventually "failed"? In FrancoisBonnarel opinion there was a sociological and a technical reason. The sociological one was that the Provenance task was nobody's priority task (including DM "permanents" like Mireille, Anita, Igor or François) just because there was much more critical VO businness for them at the time. Things have changed now. The technical point on the other side was that there was a lot of classes to develop and many ways were possible to describe the metatada. Probably moving to the W3C core architecture helped to structure the efforts around a sound an stable core. | ||||||||||||||||||
> > | Why was all this so slow and eventually "failed"? In FrancoisBonnarel opinion there was a sociological and a technical reason. The sociological one was that the Provenance task was nobody's priority task (including DM "permanents" like Mireille, Anita, Igor or François) just because there was much more critical VO businness for them at the time. Things have changed now. The technical point on the other side was that there were a lot of classes to develop and many ways were possible to describe the metatada. Probably moving to the W3C core architecture helped to structure the efforts around a sound and stable core. | ||||||||||||||||||
|
<--
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||
< < | There were splinter meetings on provenance in Baltimore, Garching and Nara. No trace has been left about this. But it was opportunities to discover requirements from newcomers in the game. The same happened at EURO-VO meetings in the same period. | ||||||||||||||||||||
> > | There were splinter meetings on provenance in Baltimore, Garching and Nara. No trace has been left about this. But they have been opportunities to discover requirements from newcomers in the game. The same happened at EURO-VO meetings in the same period. | ||||||||||||||||||||
* First xml attempts | |||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||
< < | Attempts were made to serialize provenance details. The goal was to demonstrate the possibility of the project. | ||||||||||||||||||||
> > | Attempts were made to serialize provenance details. The goal was to demonstrate the aibility of the project. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||
< < | You can also look directly at the xml schema and the xml example prototyped in this period. They are not consistent | ||||||||||||||||||||
> > | You can also look directly at the xml schema and the xml example prototyped in this period. They are not consistent however. | ||||||||||||||||||||
* UML diagram
According to IVOA rules at that time a Data Model had to be exposed with an UML schema. In 2010 it was considered time to try to build one.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
* Sao Paulo review (October 2012) | |||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||
< < | In a dedicated splinter meeting at this interop an attempt was made to relaunch the effort. There was a lot of use cases summarized in the Introduction talk as well as a summary of the previous technological attempts. there were talks by Nikos from Marseille (caclulator), ArnoldRots and KristinRiebe, but unfortunatly they are lost. A the end of the meeting MarkusDemleitner concluded that the approach followed so far was defintly too ambitious and we had to start with revised ambitions and more stable technology. This started at the Heidelberg meeting in May 2013. | ||||||||||||||||||||
> > | In a dedicated splinter meeting at this interop an attempt was made to relaunch the effort. There was a lot of use cases summarized in the Introduction talk as well as a summary of the previous technological attempts. There were talks by Nikos from Marseille (caclulator), ArnoldRots and KristinRiebe, but unfortunately they are lost. A the end of the meeting MarkusDemleitner concluded that the approach followed so far was definetly too ambitious and we had to start with revised ambitions and more stable technology. This started at the Heidelberg meeting in May 2013. | ||||||||||||||||||||
* Conclusion | |||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||
< < | Why was all this so slow and eventually "failed". In FrancoisBonnarel opinion there was a sociological and a technical reason. The sociological one was that the Provenance task was nobody's priority task (including DM "permanents" like Mireille, Anita, Igor or myself) just because there was much more critical businness at the time. Things have changed now. The technical point was that ther was a lot of classes ato develop and many ways to describe the metatada. Probably moving to the W3C core architecture helped to structure the efforts | ||||||||||||||||||||
> > | Why was all this so slow and eventually "failed"? In FrancoisBonnarel opinion there was a sociological and a technical reason. The sociological one was that the Provenance task was nobody's priority task (including DM "permanents" like Mireille, Anita, Igor or François) just because there was much more critical VO businness for them at the time. Things have changed now. The technical point on the other side was that there was a lot of classes to develop and many ways were possible to describe the metatada. Probably moving to the W3C core architecture helped to structure the efforts around a sound an stable core. | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
<--
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | There were splinter meetings on provenance in Baltimore, Garching and Nara. No trace has been left about this. But it was opportunities to discover requirements from newcomers in the game. The same happened at EURO-VO meetings in the same period. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
* First xml attempts | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | Attempts were made to serialize provenance details. The goal was to demonstrate the possibility of the project. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | You can also look directly at the xml schema and the xml example prototyped in this period. They are not consistent | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
* UML diagram | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | According to IVOA rules at that time a Data Model had to be exposed with an UML schema. In 2010 it was considered time to try to build one. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
* Sao Paulo review (October 2012) In a dedicated splinter meeting at this interop an attempt was made to relaunch the effort. There was a lot of use cases summarized in the Introduction talk as well as a summary of the previous technological attempts. there were talks by Nikos from Marseille (caclulator), ArnoldRots and KristinRiebe, but unfortunatly they are lost. A the end of the meeting MarkusDemleitner concluded that the approach followed so far was defintly too ambitious and we had to start with revised ambitions and more stable technology. This started at the Heidelberg meeting in May 2013. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
* Conclusion
Why was all this so slow and eventually "failed". In FrancoisBonnarel opinion there was a sociological and a technical reason. The sociological one was that the Provenance task was nobody's priority task (including DM "permanents" like Mireille, Anita, Igor or myself) just because there was much more critical businness at the time. Things have changed now. The technical point was that ther was a lot of classes ato develop and many ways to describe the metatada. Probably moving to the W3C core architecture helped to structure the efforts
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
<--
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | The motivation and use cases for a provenance data model have been discussed at most of the Interop meetings between 2006 and 2013 with evolution of the concept | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | The motivation and use cases for a provenance data model have been discussed at most of the Interop meetings between 2006 and 2012 with evolution of the concept: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | Spring 2006 (Observation.ppt) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
* First xml attempts | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
* UML diagram | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
* Sao Paulo review (October 2012) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | In a dedicated splinter meeting at this interop an attempt was made to relaunch the effort. There was a lot of use cases summarized in the Introduction talk as well as a summary of the previous technological attempts. there were talks by Nikos from Marseille (caclulator), ArnoldRots and KristinRiebe, but unfortunatly they are lost. A the end of the meeting MarkusDemleitner concluded that the approach followed so far was defintly too ambitious and we had to start with revised ambitions and more stable technology. This started at the Heidelberg meeting in May 2013. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
<--
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | The basic concepts of this model have been discussed as early as 2002/2004. It gave birth to the Spectral data model and the characterisation data model. The draft for the full Observation model became an IVOA note in 2005. The concept of provenance was introduced in this note. | |||||||
* Motivation and use cases | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | The motivation and use cases for a provenance data model have been discussed at most of the Interop meetings between 2006 and 2013 with evolution of the concept Spring 2006 (Observation.ppt) | |||||||
* First xml attempts * UML diagram * Sao Paulo review (October 2012) |
<--
|