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

Re: new release of PROV-DM document

From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:27:48 +0100
Message-ID: <4E7B45E4.3090507@ncl.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Khalid,

we have been incorporating your comments, either by
1- editing
2- adding a note to be dealt with later
3- commenting here below.

so below are some comments for (3)
On 9/21/11 8:22 PM, Khalid Belhajjame wrote:
> Hi,
> Here are some comments on the current working draft of the provenance model.
> - 5.2.4 Annotation
> why does annotation identified by an id. Wouldn’t it be better if
> instead having the id of the elementExpression subject to annotation.
> Did you opt for this option because an annotation can apply to multiple
> elements expressions.
> The observation also apply to annotationAssociationExpression
yes, precisely. the annotation "comment=I am not sure I was sober when I asserted this" :-) potentially applies to multiple elements 
of the model.
> - 5.3.3.1 Process Execution Linked Derivation Assertion
> In the definition of wasDerivedFrom the qualifier q2 and q1 seems to be
> redundant, as they should, I think, be specified within the context of
> use and generation instead.
but the qualifiers are precisely those that end up in a wasGeneratedBy expression by virtue of constraint "derivation-events".
> You have added a note stating that “Should this dependency of attributes
> be made explicit as argument of the derivation expression? By making it
> explicit, we would allow someone to verify the validity of the
> derivation expression.”
> I was thinking of adding derivation-qualifier to wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1),
> but instead of being a set of attribute-value, it can be specified by a
> set of pair s of the form<b,B>, where b is a characterizing attribute
> of e2 and B is the set of characterizing attributes of e1 that were used
> to compute the value of b.
while keeping the mapping around may be a good idea, syntactically this seems to break the regular structure of attribute-value 
pairs. Maybe this requires one to think of a more general map data structure?
> 5.5.1 qualifier
> “A qualifier’s sequence of name-value pairs MAY be empty”. Wouldn’t make
> sense to require at least the role should be specified in the case of
> use, generation and control?
noted. the two sentences seems to be contradictory.

-Paolo
Received on Thursday, 22 September 2011 14:28:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:41 GMT