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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-332 (review-prov-n-wd5): issue to collect feedback on prov-n wd5 [prov-n]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:33:34 -0400
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A5E65053-4D21-47E0-A3D9-FF0999C074B5@rpi.edu>
PROV-N editors,

I think the draft is acceptable for public release.
Please see my general comments below.

Regards,
Tim

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-dm-20120402/prov-n.html


==================
General comments

1)
Perhaps "RDF's reliance on triples" should be "RDF's insistence on triples" :-)

2) 
the intro to syntactic marker - shows assertions with a missing marker for the id (the first position)
wasDerivedFrom(e2, e1, a, g2, u1)
wasDerivedFrom(e2, e1, a, -, -)
wasDerivedFrom(e2, e1, -, -, -)
should be
wasDerivedFrom(-, e2, e1, a, g2, u1)
wasDerivedFrom(-, e2, e1, a, -, -)
wasDerivedFrom(-, e2, e1, -, -, -)

apparently the marker is optional. Why is it optional?

3)
I'm not sure what to take away from this:
"""
 PROV-N exposes attributes that PROV-DM provides an interpretation for [PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS] directly as positional arguments of expressions, whereas those for which PROV-DM provides no interpretation are expressed among the optional attribute-value pairs. This latter category of attributes includes prov:label, prov:location, prov:role, and prov:type.
"""
* suggest adding an example of the two (start time is positional, foo=bar and prov:role are latter category)





4)
I was a bit surprised that DM and -constraints says that "it is assumed that containers exist", but then PROV-N does it.   
I guess it makes sense.



5)
entityExpression ::= entity ( identifier optional-attribute-values )

but "identifier" is not defined anywhere within view.
* recommend adding a link to the productions that are not defined within view.




6)
expression 
 ::=
entityExpression | activityExpression | generationExpression | usageExpression 
  | startExpression | endExpression | communicationExpression | startByActivityExpression 
  | agentExpression | attributionExpression | associationExpression | responsibilityExpression 
  | derivationExpression | revisionExpression | quotationExpression 
  | hadOriginalSourceExpression | traceabilityExpression 
  | alternateExpression | specializationExpression 
  | noteExpression | annotationExpression

* recommend adding these as links to their production (and in general, anywhere one is mentioned it should be a link)





7)
Why are the identifiers not in a prefix?
e.g.
 "i" in wasInformedBy(i, ex:a1, ex:a2)
This occurs throughout.
And the places like "
wasAttributedTo(e, ag)
" don't have prefixes on other arguments.




8)
Ensuring spaces follow commas in the examples would help readability.



9)
Looks like we hit the RDF vs XML xsd namespace problem again:
"xsd denotes the XML Schema namespace http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema." 






10)
(My Turtle bias showing)
When I define the default namespace, do I use NO colon or JUST a colon?
I.e., is the error on the first or second entity in:
container
  default <http://example.org/0/>
  entity(isThisOK)
  entity(:orIsThis)
end
Or, another way, "Is the colon part of the prefix?" In Turtle it is not, the XML side would say it is.
This is touched on in section 4.7.2 Identifier

Can I have:
 
container
  prefix : <http://example.org/99/>
  entity(:isThisOK)
end




11)
Getting rid of %% QName would be nice 

"prov:type="ex:Programmer"  %% xsd:QName"

(per note "Wouldn't it be useful to introduce a literal for a qualified name? Currenlty, we have to write:")





12)

Why is  prov:AccountEntity not just prov:Account?
Should we rename prov:Plan to prov:PlanEntity and prov:EmptyCollection to prov:EmptyCollectionEntity ? (please, no.)




13)
In the example:
container
  prefix ex <http://example.org/>

  entity(e2,

What is the namespace for e2?
(Yes, my RDF bias shows here, sorry.)





14)
why distinguish containers and accounts?
Why not use the container as the account, and let the container be named or unnamed?
Is it because XML needs a root element :-)




On Mar 29, 2012, at 9:38 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:

> PROV-ISSUE-332 (review-prov-n-wd5): issue to collect feedback on prov-n wd5 [prov-n]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/332
> 
> Raised by: Luc Moreau
> On product: prov-n
> 
> When sending feedback on prov-n document wd5, please send it under this issue or individual new issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2012 00:34:05 GMT

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