W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > January 2019

Re: [dxwg] Editorial revision to sec "Quality Information" (#652)

From: Riccardo Albertoni via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 15:00:39 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-453544494-1547218838-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
@aisaac wrote
>  I'm afraid I still don't understand how the prov:Plan a:ConformanceTest is derived from DBWP. Is it in a specific section?

The DWBP specifies Best Practices and for each BP suggests how to test it, the suggestions might or might not be machine testable and the level of abstraction is rather high. AFAIK BP specifications and Tests are mixed together, no separate section is provided. 

Thus, the derivation in the example links a plan with the DWBP testing in a very shallow way. The ConformanceTest is rather underspecified in the example. It just says that the ConformanceTest is somehow derived from the DWBP recommendation. 

Probably, you were expecting something more. So far, I have resisted to the temptation of specifying the ConformanceTest more, because as far as I know, 
- there is not a DWBP document prescribing the testing procedure more in details.
-  Prov does not say much about how to structure the plans.   In a recent paper,  I and my colleagues have adopted P-PLAN and [Open Provenance Model for Workflows (OPMW)](http://www.opmw.org/documents.html) for detailing workflows and steps of a prov plan. However, this is one of the possibilities extending the prov rec, and I guess others might have different preferences ...  

GitHub Notification of comment by riccardoAlbertoni
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/652#issuecomment-453544494 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 11 January 2019 15:00:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 April 2019 13:45:06 UTC