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

PROV-ISSUE-132 (YolandaGil): Improve the examples to make them more intuitive and of broader appeal in Provenance Data Model (PROV-DM) Draft [Data Model]

From: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:45:15 +0000
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1RGxcB-0001BA-B2@lowblow.w3.org>

PROV-ISSUE-132 (YolandaGil): Improve the examples to make them more intuitive and of broader appeal in Provenance Data Model (PROV-DM) Draft [Data Model]

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/132

Raised by: Yolanda Gil
On product: Data Model

It seems to me we are using non-intuitive or incomplete notions in the examples, which will make our documents that much harder to be understood and therefore the standard adopted.  I would suggest to use one or two scenarios of broad interest, for example publishing a web page that has diverse and rich content, or an example with linked data.

For instance, in Section 4.2: It says "A file is read by a process execution".  The fact that a file being read is a ProcessExecution seems to me to be a very contrived example (I don't think we've ever discussed a provenance scenario where file reading was considered, because there are other more pressing processes to represent).  

Another case: if evt1, evt2, etc are timestamps, why not label them t1, t2, etc so they don't have a label that makes them look like events?

Another case: Somewhere it mentions "spellchecked" as an attribute, if so we should really show how the spellchecker program plays a role in the provenance record so this attribute becomes so. 

Another case: all the examples of agents are people, but agents can be other things (eg the Royal Society that is used in another section).  
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 18:45:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:46 GMT