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

Re: PROV-O ready for internal WG review - due 9 April.

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:31:45 -0400
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <EF11A9C9-A226-4764-AC41-D6BF837B6077@rpi.edu>
To: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
Ted,

Thanks for your comments.

I have added them to http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Prov-o_draft_review_2_April_2012#Ted

and walked through them briefly, adding "RAISED" to each point.

The prov-o team will be working to handle each comment as we work towards LC.

Regards,
Tim

On Apr 26, 2012, at 9:42 AM, Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote:

> All --
> 
> On Apr 2, 2012, at 04:12 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>> Please see ISSUE-336 for the information about reviewing
>> PROV-O HTML and OWL.
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/336
> 
> 
> 
> Apologies for the delay in my review.  
> 
> Given the progress made on PROV-O, I've written the following 
> with reference to the *current* version, approved April 19 for 
> release as FPWD2 --
> 
> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html>
> 
> (Working Drafts being essentially heartbeats that demonstrate work 
> is active, and progress is being made, I saw no need to block this 
> release... but these comments remain important.)
> 
> 
> 
> First, to the key questions --
> 
>> * Does the HTML file provide an adequate overview of the 
>>  OWL design elements?
> 
> As things stand, yes.
> 
> 
>> * Do the different organizations of PROV-O HTML and DM 
>>  complement each other, or is it distracting?
> 
> Their differences are fine.
> 
> 
>> * Would any additional comments (or attributes) help you 
>>  read the cross reference list in PROV-O HTML?
> 
> 1. Remove the redundant explanatory text.  It should not follow
>   *both* IRI and Example.  Given my choice, I'd say the better
>   positioning is between IRI and Example; not between Example
>   and Domain/Range/SuperProperty/SubProperty/etc.
> 
>   Now seen in at least
>   - <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#Activity>
>   - <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#Agent>
>   - <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#Entity>
> 
>   But not seen in
>   - <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#actedOnBehalfOf>
> 
> 2. I would appreciate a repeat of Figure 1 at the start of 
>   section 4.1.  I would also appreciate a complete
>   set of illustrations similar to Figure 2 at the start 
>   of section 4.2 (and I would find such a complete set of
>   illustrations more useful in Section 3.3 than the tables
>   with which it currently concludes; I would not necessarily
>   *replace* the tables, but the illustrations are *very*
>   helpful to correct understanding).
> 
> 
>> * Are the comments within the OWL file adequate to familiarize 
>>  with the structure? If not, what kinds of comments would help?
>> * Should the OWL file contain any links to documentation (e.g., 
>>  to the DM, to examples, etc.)?
> 
> 
>> * Can the document be released as a next public working draft? 
>>  If no, what are the blocking issues?
> 
> As noted earlier... Yes.
> 
> 
> And now... in depth.
> 
> 
> 3. First thing, an overall style note for the example notation.  
>   I have found that adding extra space characters to pad columns, 
>   such that logical columns also *appear* as such, radically 
>   increases comprehension.  You can see a bit that (almost) does 
>   this in the last stanza of the "Qualified Derivation" example.  
>   (I'd add spaces between "a" and "prov:Derivation;" to make the 
>   first line match the ones beneath it.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> re: 2. PROV-O at a glance
> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#prov-o-at-a-glance>
> 
> 4. prov:wasStartedByActivity and prov:wasStartedBy should swap 
>   positions, between "Starting Point classes and properties"
>   and "Expanded classes and properties".  The former is clearly
>   a refinement of the latter.
> 
>   Further, I think there should be a new prov:wasStartedByAgent
>   (and *possibly* prov:wasStartedByEntity, if an Entity can 
>   act...), parallel to prov:wasStartedByActivity.
> 
>   It seems to me that prov:wasStartedBy is the indefinite super-
>   property, used when you *don't know* what class started the 
>   current Activity, with subproperties of prov:wasStartedByAgent 
>   and prov:wasStartedByActivity (and *possibly* 
>   prov:wasStartedByEntity), which are used when you *do* know 
>   the class of the starting, er, entity (not prov:Entity, but 
>   general RDF entity).
> 
>   Those changes will necessarily have reflections throughout 
>   the following and connected documents... 
> 
> 
> 
> re: 3.1 Starting Point Terms
> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#description-starting-point-terms>
> 
> 5. The diagram (and explanatory text) lacks prov:wasStartedBy
>   (and new sub-property/ies prov:wasStartedByActivity and 
>   prov:wasStartedByAgent).
> 
> 
> 
> 6. I think it's important to clearly state that an RDF entity 
>   which is a prov:Agent or prov:Activity in one Provenance 
>   document, may be a prov:Entity in another; that an RDF 
>   entity which is a prov:Entity in one document may act as 
>   a prov:Agent or a prov:Activity in another -- which is all 
>   to say, that a prov:Agent or prov:Activity may have its 
>   own Provenance...
> 
> 
> 
> 7. This phrasing is problematic --
> 
>   "Entities are related to each other using derivation, which is 
>   used to specify that the creation/existence of an entity was 
>   influenced in some way by the consumption of another entity."
> 
>   "Consumption" implies to me some shrinkage or change of the 
>   "consumed" entity.  I think this is not necessary, and thus 
>   that this wording should change to something like --
> 
>   "Entities are related to each other using derivation, which is 
>   used to specify that the creation/existence of an entity was 
>   influenced in some way by another entity, whether by its simple 
>   presence or existence (as with chemical catalysts), physical 
>   interaction and/or consumption (as with chemical reactants), 
>   or otherwise."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> re: 3.2 Expanded Terms
> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#description-expanded-terms>
> 
> 
> 8. "Derek detects a typo. He doesnt' want to record"
> 
>   I detect a typo.  "doesnt' want" should be "doesn't want"
> 
> 
> 
> 9. This wording is confusing to me --
> 
>   "Thus, the location of the new revision has the same permalink, 
>   but a different url for its snapshot (ex:postContent1)."
> 
>   The "permalink" abbreviation only replaces 2 words ("permanent 
>   link"), but here tries to replace a much larger phrase from the 
>   preceding paragraph ("permanent link where the content of the 
>   latest version is shown")
> 
>   I think this would be better --
> 
>   "Thus, the permalink to the latest version 
>   (ex:more-crime-happens-in-cities) remains the same in the new 
>   revision, but a different url is given for its snapshot 
>   (ex:postContent1)."
> 
>   I suggest also tweaking all matching lines in the example 
>   block, from --
> 
>      prov:atLocation ex:more-crime-happens-in-cities;   ##PERMALINK of the post
> 
> -- to --
> 
>      prov:atLocation ex:more-crime-happens-in-cities;   ##PERMALINK to the (latest revision of the) post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> re: 3.4 Collections Terms
> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#description-collections>
> 
> 10. I think there's an error in this text --
> 
>    "The example below specifies that the collection :c1 was 
>    obtained from the empty collection :c1 by inserting the 
>    key-value pairs ("k1", :e1) and ("k2", :e2)."
> 
>    I think that the "empty collection" here is ":c" not ":c1".
> 
> 
> Though I began this cycle at the conclusion of last week's call,
> I've only gotten this far to this point (the morning of this
> week's call) ... but it seems better to put this partial review
> out now, than to delay it further.
> 
> Speak with you soon,
> 
> Ted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> A: Yes.                      http://www.guckes.net/faq/attribution.html
> | Q: Are you sure?
> | | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
> | | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
> 
> Ted Thibodeau, Jr.           //               voice +1-781-273-0900 x32
> Senior Support & Evangelism  //        mailto:tthibodeau@openlinksw.com
>                             //              http://twitter.com/TallTed
> OpenLink Software, Inc.      //              http://www.openlinksw.com/
>         10 Burlington Mall Road, Suite 265, Burlington MA 01803
>     Weblog   -- http://www.openlinksw.com/blogs/
>     LinkedIn -- http://www.linkedin.com/company/openlink-software/
>     Twitter  -- http://twitter.com/OpenLink
>     Google+  -- http://plus.google.com/100570109519069333827/
>     Facebook -- http://www.facebook.com/OpenLinkSoftware
> Universal Data Access, Integration, and Management Technology Providers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2012 14:32:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 14:32:21 GMT