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

Fwd: PROV-O: Review Sam Coppens

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:41:40 -0400
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F2170E5D-DA54-403B-B9DA-8F1A3040169C@rpi.edu>
Thanks, Sam, for your feedback.

Tracker, this is ISSUE-336

-Tim


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Sam C <samcoppens.werk@gmail.com>
> Subject: PROV-O: Review Sam Coppens
> Date: April 11, 2012 8:20:34 AM EDT
> To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
> 
> Hello Tim,
> 
> Below you can find the review. It looks very good and I could only point out some minor things. I recommend it as a public working draft.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Sam
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Review PROV-O
> 
> The document provides certainly a good overview of the design elements of PROV-O. It is well structured and easy to understand and to follow. PROV-O and PROV-DM complement each other. Since prior knowledge of PROV-DM is a must, I would insert a link to that document in the ontology. It is essential background information and provides the rationale behind certain design elements of the PROV-O ontology. The examples are not essential in understanding the PROV-O ontology, so I would only include these examples in the html document of PROV-O, not in the ontology itself.
> 
> The PROV-O documentation can be released the next public working draft.
> 
> Some minor comments:
> 
> Section 3.1: PROV-O distinguishes between two kinds of dependencies which are specified using the properties wasInformedBy and wasStartedBy --> wasStartedByActivity. wasStartedBy is an expanded property, thus I think using wasStartedByActivity is more appropriate.
> 
> Section 3.4: Here, prov:Collection is defined. This section needs a motivation why prov:Collection is introduced and why no other collection representation is chosen.
> 
> Section 4.2: specializationOf Can`t this property be made transitive? If not, a motivation would clarify this.
> 
> Section 4.2: wasRevisionOf Is a revision directly related to the previous `version` of an entity? If not, this property can be made transitive.
> 
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 16:42:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:07:03 GMT