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

Feedback about DM draft 4

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:00:47 +0100
Message-ID: <CAExK0DfRu-9cLoNi_v5hb3LHCipH8qPhn+zdXcucAdSBr2cXjw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
Cc: "<public-prov-wg@w3.org>" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi all,
here are my comments after reading part 1:

Objectives:

   - decide whether the new documents are inline with the simplification
   objective recommend whether they become the new editor's draft.

          ---> YES, it is much more simple and easy to read now. I would
take it as the new editor's draft.


   -    Decide whether ISSUE-145, ISSUE-183, ISSUE-215, ISSUE-225 and
   ISSUE-234 (all relating to identifiers) can be closed

          ---> 145: No accounts anymore, just bundles (or AccountEntity),
so it could be closed.
          ---> 215: It has to do with the distinction between records,
accounts and mitning ids. Since we don't have records and accounts, then
the issue could be closed.
          ---> 225: All objects in the universe of discourse have been
clarified. Can be closed.
          ---> 234: The term "record" has been dropped. Therefore, this can
be closed.

***Comments from
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/towards-wd4.html
***

- Button "Hide ASN" does actually do anything?

2.3
- AccountEntity? I thought it was Bundle, but ok.

-Three types of agents are recognized by PROV-DM because they are commonly
encountered in applications making data and documents available on the Web:
persons, software agents, and organizations.--> Wasn't software supposed to
be system/computingSystem?

2.5: there are arrows missing: Activity wasStartedBy Activity. Entity:
alternateOf, specializationOf

3.1: It would be helpful to see the properties labelled in the figure.

3.2: Here I would suggest to simplify the figure (leave just 2 authors (as
in the example), or the editors), and label the edges as well.

3.3: Ah finally a reference to metadata provenance :) This is what Kai and
some of the DC community were asking for.

4.1.2: "In contrast, an activity is something that happens, unfolds or
develops through time, but is typically not identifiable by the
characteristics it exhibits at any point during its duration". What about
the activity's ID. Why isn't that enough to characterize the activity
enough to become an entity or an agent?

4.2: wasStartedBy between activities is missing in the table. In fact I
haven't seen wasStartedBy between activities in the doc. It certainly was
an overloaded property in the WD4. Has it been removed?

4.2.1.2:There is a note that refers to Usage record's id. It should be just
usage.

4.2.3.2: I got the feeling from discussions on the mailing list that we
were going to reduce one of the derivation types (Imprecise-1 derivation).
Am I wrong?

4.3.3.5: I don't understand how a path in a computer or a row and a column
are a geographic place.

5.5: Example missing

5.7: Example missing.

5.8: If collections are just a kind of entity and they have their custom
relationships (afterInsertion, afterRemoval), would it make sense to
separate them from the core? (In a profile, best practice or example of
extensibility)

*********
- One question that came into my mind when reading the model: How would I
model a usage that lasted for 20 min? (Right now we only have the beggining
of the usage). Example: My activity uses 2 files. The first one is parsed
for 20 mins and the other one instantly, and I want to model this with DM.
Unless I create 2 activities (which is not what happened) I don't see how.

Thanks,
Daniel
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 11:01:15 GMT

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