W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-comments@w3.org > July 2012

Re: PROV feedback

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:29:59 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRoT8YpKyBBVNuGy_nhPPwiVwp_m38mmH1wL2mrg_YzSTA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Freimuth, Robert, Ph.D." <Freimuth.Robert@mayo.edu>
Cc: "public-prov-comments@w3.org" <public-prov-comments@w3.org>
Dear Robert,

Thanks for your extensive review! We have created ISSUE-463 for your
comment which you can find at:


We will now discuss in the Working Group how to address your comment.
To not swamp you with email, we'll do this on our internal mailing
list and get back to you with either a resolution, an update on
progress or clarification questions.

You can always check where we are at by looking at the issue above.

One quick question I had, was whether the UML diagrams with the
PROV-DM were useful to you? Did you base your diagrams on those?


On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Freimuth, Robert, Ph.D.
<Freimuth.Robert@mayo.edu> wrote:
> To the W3C PROV working group:
> This email is in response to the call for comment and feedback on the
> current working draft of the PROV model.  I reviewed the PROV documentation
> following a recommendation from Jim McCusker.
> I am impressed with the volume of PROV documentation.  I did not have time
> to thoroughly review all of the documents that comprise the PROV spec, but I
> was able to review the Primer, Notation, and Data Model.  I found PROV to be
> relatively complete and well-documented.  Thank you for all of the effort
> the working group has put into this.
> I have attached a document that contains my detailed comments and feedback.
> Thanks to Tim Lebo and Jim McCusker for answering some of my early questions
> via email.
> As part of my review and learning process, I also created a UML model of
> PROV.  This allowed me to actively understand the model and see the effects
> of change proposals.  I attached a document that summarizes my proposed
> changes and a series of images from the model that I created (which
> incorporates the proposed changes), which I hope will help make the proposed
> changes more clear to the work group.  This is done in the spirit of
> offering ideas and solutions, not just complaints.
> I would be happy to discuss these documents with the work group if my
> comments are unclear (which is likely).  I am interested in your response to
> these suggestions and I look forward to seeing the final PROV spec.
> Finally, some context for my interest in this work.  I am looking for a
> provenance model to use for pharmacogenomics.  Now that I feel like I have a
> decent understanding of the model I will evaluate it for use in this
> scenario.  I suspect I will need to extend the model to capture more
> information about why changes were made, not just when and how they were
> made.  This may be outside the scope of PROV.
> Regards,
> Robert R. Freimuth, Ph.D.
> Associate Consultant
> Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics
> Assistant Professor of Medical Informatics
> _______________________________
> Mayo Clinic
> 200 First Street SW
> Rochester, MN 55905
> www.mayoclinic.org
> <<PROV_Feedback.zip>>

Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
Assistant Professor
- Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group |
  Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
- The Network Institute
VU University Amsterdam
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2012 07:30:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 12:08:59 UTC