Re: comments on PROV Primer and Overview

Hi Bob

Our tutorial material covers RDFa so that might be of interest to you:

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PROV-O_as_RDFa

Thanks
Paul


On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Bob DuCharme <bob@snee.com> wrote:

> Looks good to me!
>
> My RDFa suggestion was more of a brainstorming idea about marketing
> PROV, so a separate document would be a perfectly understandable place
> for it.
>
> And thanks for adding my name to the Acknowledgements. I can see that
> I'm in some distinguished company.
>
> Bob
>
>
> On 4/5/2013 11:06 AM, Miles, Simon wrote:
> > Hello Bob,
> >
> > Thanks again for your comments on PROV Primer and PROV Overview (below).
> The Working Group have discussed the primer issues you raised. For almost
> all suggestions and corrections in the mail, we agree that these are
> improvements that should be made.
> >
> > Specifically, we've made the following changes to the primer:
> >   - We have reduced the number of uses of "intuitive" to describe
> Section 2, and referred to it as "high-level" in the introduction contents
> summary.
> >   - We have added references to the sections being described in the
> introduction contents summary (bullet list), as suggested.
> >   - We have fixed the typos indicated.
> >   - We have added numeric suffixes to more entities and activities to
> make clear that they are instances rather than classes of occurrence, e.g.
> composition1, compile1.
> >
> > See the latest primer including these changes at:
> >    https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/Primer.html
> >
> > For the suggestion of adding an RDFa example, while this would be a nice
> addition, we feel it would be too specific to a technology not covered
> anywhere else in the primer (or other PROV specs). It would be better
> provided as a separate document or part of the group's FAQ, and we will
> consider creating this, though preparing the specs will take priority.
> >
> > Can you let us know, for the official W3C records, whether you are happy
> with this response?
> >
> > thanks,
> > Simon
> >
> > Dr Simon Miles
> > Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> > Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> > +44 (0)20 7848 1166
> >
> > Modelling the Provenance of Data in Autonomous Systems:
> > http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1264/
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Miles, Simon
> > Sent: 26 March 2013 15:24
> > To: Bob DuCharme; public-prov-comments@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: comments on PROV Primer and Overview
> >
> > Hello Bob,
> >
> > Thanks very much for reading the primer and for the feedback. A lot of
> your suggestions sound good, and thanks for picking up the typos. We'll
> discuss your email in the Working Group and get back to you with a proper
> response soon.
> >
> > thanks again,
> > Simon
> >
> > Dr Simon Miles
> > Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> > Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> > +44 (0)20 7848 1166
> >
> > Efficient Multi-Granularity Service Composition:
> > http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1396/
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Bob DuCharme [bob@snee.com]
> > Sent: 22 March 2013 14:26
> > To: public-prov-comments@w3.org
> > Subject: comments on PROV Primer and Overview
> >
> > Great job. I knew nothing about PROV other than its general goals, so I
> > was probably a good guinea pig to read the Primer. Because it said to
> > start with the Overview, I did.
> >
> > ------ Notes on
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-prov-overview-20130312/------
> >
> > typos: defintions, Dublic (Spinal Tap reference: did you mean "Dubly"?),
> > "these these", "that each document on" (that each document is on?),
> >
> > Table in section 2: In the Document column, several sentences are
> > missing periods at the end.
> >
> > The PROV-DICTIONARY summary should have a few more words about why this
> > document exists for the benefit of those reading this document as their
> > very first PROV document, because the notion of collection hasn't been
> > introduced yet.
> >
> > PROV-LINKS entry on the table: same comment, but about bundles. (Section
> > 2 further on has a better short explanation of this document's purpose.)
> >
> > ------ Notes on http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-primer/ ------
> >
> > The document calls section 2 "intuitive" four times--I would say show,
> > don't tell, or at least don't tell four times. "High-level" would be
> > more accurate (and more modest). Section 2 is actually not that
> > intuitive, because it covers a lot of material at a pretty abstract
> > level. The Primer is much easier to follow once you get to section 3.
> >
> > To make it clearer about how helpful section 3 will be, the bulleted
> > list at the end of section 1 could be more explicit that the first two
> > bullets refer to the remaining sections of the document ("section 2
> > gives a high-level overview of PROV concepts...") so that the reader
> > knows when they're getting to the more concrete example. You could even
> > add to the bullet about section 3 something like "in which a blogger
> > investigates the provenance of a newspaper article to track down a
> > potential error".
> >
> > "There are other kinds of metadata that is not provenance" that are not
> > provenance
> >
> > "the author of an article may attribute that article to themselves" the
> > authors (because of the plural "themselves")
> >
> > "the agency also wish to know" wishes
> >
> > If some of the example qnames were renamed to be less generic, it would
> > make section 3 easier to follow. For example, "ex:article" looks more
> > like a class name; ex:article1001 looks more clearly like the identifier
> > for a specific article.
> >
> > An added bonus for section 3.9 could be some RDFa syntax for the first
> > example, given that it's about Betty embedding provenance information in
> > her blog entry. Something like this, which rdflib confirmed to me gets
> > translated to the appropriate triples:
> >
> >     <p>According to a recent government report,</p>
> >       <blockquote about="ex:quoteInBlogEntry" property="prov:value"
> >                   typeof="prov:Entity">Smaller cities have more crime
> > than larger ones</blockquote>
> >       <span about="ex:quoteInBlogEntry" rel="prov:wasQuotedFrom"
> > href="ex:article"/>
> >
> > In fact, a little PROV-RDFa cookbook, perhaps as a separate document or
> > even blog entry, could help to jumpstart the use of PROV among the
> > Bettys of the world.
> >
> > Again, great work and I look forward to using PROV.
> >
> > Bob DuCharme
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
Assistant Professor
- Web & Media Group | Department of Computer Science
- The Network Institute
VU University Amsterdam