W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > May 2011

Re: concept illustrations for the data journalism example

From: <hartig@informatik.hu-berlin.de>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 16:18:31 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <60836.>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org

On Tue, 10 May 2011 11:33:04 +0100 James Cheney wrote:
> I think the example and concept illustrations are a good starting point.
> I agree that it's good to employ high-level examples and document how
> the examples illustrate the concepts, but I think it would really help me
> (and perhaps others) to have concrete examples of how the different
> current proposals would handle examples like the data journalism one

Out of curiosity I tried to describe the processing steps of the example
using the Provenance Vocabulary [1]. I could describe most of the aspects
of the processing steps. Hence, it turned out that the Provenance
Vocabulary is well suited for most parts of the given scenario and for the
level of abstraction as given in the example.  I documented this exercise
in our wiki [2]. Those aspects of the processing steps that I could not
describe are listed explicitly.

While I was trying to describe the processing steps, the following
questions about the example came up:

1.) The example does not talk about specific points in time at which the
different processing steps happened (Hence, I omitted corresponding
statements in my description). Shouldn't the example extended with such
kind of information? For instance, the first processing step could read:
"government (gov) converts data (d1) to RDF (f1) at time (t1)"

2.) Processing step 4 says: "analyst (alice) downloads a turtle
serialization (lcp1) ..." While I was trying to describe that fact, it
felt strange that Alice was the agent/actor that accessed the server.
Hence, I would say that Alice cannot download lcp1 directly, she must use
an HTTP client software for that. Same for Bob in processing step 8.
Should we add that to the example?

3.) Processing step 7 says "government (gov) publishes an update (d2) of
data (d1) as a new Web resource (r2)". That's inconsistent with processing
steps 1 and 3 where gov publishes a Web resource r1 with RDF data f1
generated from d1. Question: Was it the intention that gov now publishes
d2 directly; wouldn't it be more consistent if gov were publishing RDF
data f2 which was obtained from d2?


[1] http://purl.org/net/provenance/
Received on Wednesday, 11 May 2011 14:19:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:04 UTC