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

PROV-O Review Comments to Sections 1 - 3.1.6

From: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:59:01 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMFz4jjE=hz-Pn4uqMN2xf5iCL6kqsW0qBUE2ehoZAF_n5=kEA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I wasn't sure how to send out comments, but here's a pass I made
reading PROVO-O sections 1-3.1.6:

“PROV Ontology” and “PROV ontology” are used interchangeably
throughout the document.  Since “PROV Ontology” is the formal name  we
should be consistent.

Section 2.1:

“As a reader I thought it would be helpful to have a link on the
“Abstract Syntax Notation (ASN) to take me directly to
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-dm-20111018/#prov-asn--the-provenance-abstract-syntax-notation
explaining the motivation behind using ASN.  The  above referenced
section in PROV-DM does a great job of briefly providing the
rationale.


Section 3.1

Direct links corresponding from PROV-O class to PROV-DM model element
would make references between the two documents more intuitive.

E.g.

Class Description
Entity is defined to be "An Entity represents an identifiable
characterized thing."
[http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-dm-20111018/#expression-Entity]

  3.1.6

I was confused between the Class definition of location (geographic
location) and the example which was a directory path.     If we are
going to include directory paths then the definition of location needs
to be more general.

Comment on concern about “geospatial”:  Geospatial tends to be used to
refer to geographic data that is most likely used for processing or
analysis as opposed to something that is displayed on a map.
Recommend defer to the existing ISO standard definition.
Received on Friday, 10 February 2012 11:59:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:56 GMT