W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > April 2012

Re: Primer WD2 ready for review

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:51:51 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|7c11d01e23973ee35268db217e6f25b2o339py08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F7C0BA7.90901@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Simon, Yolanda,

The primer reads nicely. It seems to have captured the right set of
concepts and explained them at the right level.

There was a discussion of whether collections should be included in
the primer. I don't believe so.  My comment is related to what I said
about the prov-o document: if collections are added to the primer, I
think it would give too much importance to this concept and associated
relations.  There should be a *separate* HOWTO document on collections.

 From my viewpoint, the only change I would like to see implemented
before release is the introduction of a figure (compliant with PROV
"style") illustrating the example.  Note: one or more figures left to
editorial discretion.

I also believe that the PRIMER should not focus just on rdf
representation but on the others too. The prov-n examples in appendix
are not very satisfactory. Instead, buttons showing/hiding examples in
rdf, xml, prov-n should be used.  Text also will have to be changed at
many places accordingly. I am OK if this change takes place after this
release (synchronized with last call).


- In constrast to the DM and PROV-O, the primer talks about "roles" 
rather than "qualified involvement" in general. The rationale is that it 
is a more intuitive starting point for readers new to PROV. However, two 
(internal WG) reviewers have both suggested that "qualified involvement" 
should be discussed instead. What is your opinion?

I don't understand this question. Roles are presented here as 
provdm:roles.  This seems OK to me.

- Do you think the document is accessible to all the major communities 
who would want to adopt PROV or, if not, where are the deficiencies?

I think so.

- Can the document be released as a next public working draft? If no, 
what are the blocking issues?

Yes to be released, but with a figure illustrating the example.

Minor comments:

- abstract: I am not sure about the use of "non-normative".
     We should not consider this document as less normative than the others
     simply because it is a W3C NOTE (which is an artifact of the charter

    The term 'normative' is used several times.

- Likewise, I don't think you should use the word 'standard'.
   Instead use 'specification'.

- section 1: "its representation in the PROV Ontology"
    I don't think we are representing the data model in the ontology.
    We express it, we map it?

- personally, I don't like the use of "you/your". It occurs so few
   times that it could be removed.

- section 2: this not an ER diagram but a UML class diagram I believe.

- section 2.2: first occurrence of the word 'attribute'. Should we
   have seen it before?

- section 2.3: '... generate entities mid-way through occuring'????

- section 2.4: agent ... "... take an active role ..." we dropped active
    from the prov-dm definition.

- of a that chart

- 2.6: an description -> a description

- section 3: title to change when using other representations

- section 3.5:  "was controlled by" (also used elsewhere)
     we move away from control. Should another term be used?

- section 3.6:  "she contacts the government" ;-)
   brave Betty!  ->  "she contacts the government agency"

- section 3.7.
   I find the example of plan a bit ambiguous, since one could
   see the corrections as an input to the editing process.
   But then, it's not corrections, but correction instructions,
   but the prefixed name is ex:corrections. So as a minimum, it should
   be ex:instructions.

   Maybe, to avoid ambiguity, the plan could be a new methodology to
   generate data.

- appendix A: prov-n snippets:  _ should be -

- type is missing for some literals "prov:Person" %% xsd:QName

- "prov:dataToCompose" -> "ex:dataToCompose"

- "prov:regionsToAggregteBy" -> "ex:regionsToAggregATEBY"

On 04/01/2012 07:35 PM, Miles, Simon wrote:
> Hello,
> The primer is ready for review by the WG, ahead of the next release.
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/Primer.html
> Thanks,
> Simon
> Dr Simon Miles
> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
> Electronically querying for the provenance of entities:
> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/61/

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2012 08:52:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:14 UTC