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

Re: PROV-DM Simplification

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 06:27:42 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|43762ac898864ff7227124386b590399o1S5Y008l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F4DB74E.1080607@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Tracker, this is now ISSUE-274

On 15/02/2012 17:42, Curt Tilmes wrote:
> Luc,
>
> I've read the "Working Draft 4".
>
> I like the division between the parts.  It achieved the goal of making
> the DM easier to understand within Part 1.  (I still need to spend
> some time with Part 2 to understand more of it :-).
>
> It may be premature, but I also kept some notes on minor/cosmetic
> stuff I saw as I went through it (appended).  None of these are really
> blockers or major issues, just some thoughts.
>
> Curt
>
> ======================================================================
>
> PROV-DM Part 1
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/towards-wd4.html 
>
>
> Many places in this document have "inter-operability" I think it is
> more common to simply use "interoperability".
>
>
> 2.1 "An activity is anything that involves entities; this involvement
> can take multiple forms: consuming them, processing them, transforming
> them, modifying them, changing them, relocating them, using them,
> generating them, being associated with them, etc. Activities that
> operate on digital entities may for example move, copy, or duplicate
> them."
>
>     Maybe cut down the list of things, merging "transforming them,
>     modifying them, changing them" to just "transforming them"?
>
>     I also think "involves" could be slightly too broad.  How about
>     "acts/action"?
>
>     "An activity is anything that acts upon or with entities; this
>     action can take multiple forms: ..."
>
>
> "An agents is a particular type of Entity."
>
>     An agent is...
>
>
> "For example, a software for checking the use of grammar"
>
>     I would probably say "software for checking ..." instead of "a
>     software for checking ...", but that might just be an American
>     Englishism.
>
>
> 2.2 "Generation is the completed production of a new entity by
> activity.
>
>     ... by an activity.
>
>
> "This entity become available for usage after this generation."
>
>     ...entity becomes available...
>
>
> "Usage is the beginning on an entity being consumed by an
> activity. Before usage, the activity had not begun to consume or use
> to this entity (and could not have been affected by the entity)."
>
>     ...beginning of an entity...
>
>     ...or use this entity...
>
>
> "In some case, the consumption of entity influences the creation of
> another in some way."
>
>     ...consumption of an entity...
>
>
> "Examples of derivation include the transformation of a relational
> table into a linked data set, the transformation of a canvas into a
> painting, the transportation of a person from London to New York, and
> a physical transformation such as the melting of ice into water."
>
>     The other examples make sense to me, but the "transportation of a
>     person" example is particularly conceptually jarring for me.  Even
>     if we can envision such a thing being an appropriate derivation, I
>     would remove it from the examples here, sticking with examples
>     that are easier for readers to relate with.
>
>
> 2.3 "A Plan is an entity that represent a set of actions..."
>
>     ...represents...
>
>
> "PROV-DM is not prescriptive about the nature of plans, their
> representation, the actions and steps they consist of, and their
> intended goals."
>
>     change ands to ors:
>
>     PROV-DM is not prescriptive about the nature of plans, their
>     representation, the actions or steps they consist of, or their
>     intended goals.
>
>
> "... to track their provenance, and hence, plans are entities."
>
>     ... to track their provenance, so plans themselves are entities.
>
>
> "...which document it contained..."
>
>     ...which documents it contained...
>
>
> 2.4 "...it may not matter what programmer clicked the button to start
> the workflow while it would matter a lot what researcher told the
> programmer to do so."
>
>     ...which programmer...
>     ...which researcher...
>
>
> "The nature of this relation is intended to be broad, and includes
> delegation, contractual relation"
>
>     This sentence seems to be cut off, perhaps other examples were
>     intended?  Could just end it there:
>
>     ...to be broad, including delegation or a contractual relation.
>
>
> "it may not matter what student published"
>
>     ...which student...
>
>
> 4.1.3 "There are three types of agents in the model since they are
> common across most anticipated domain of use:"
>
>     ...anticipated domains of use...
>
>
> 4.1.4 note(ex:n2,[ex:reputation:"excellent"])
>
>    last ':' should be '='
>
>
>
> 4.2.2.1 "The first, introduced in this section, is relation between an
> agent..."
>
>     ...is a relation...
>
>
> "An activity association, written wasAssociatedWith(id,a,ag2,pl,attrs)
> in PROV-ASN,..."
>
>     'ag2' could just be 'ag' -- that would be sufficient to
>     distinguish activity from agent.
>
>
> 4.3.3.3 prov:steps
>
> "The attribute prov:steps defines the level of precision associated
> with a derivation. The value associated with a prov:steps attribute
> must be "single" or "any". The attribute prov:step occurs at most once
> in a derivation. A derivation without attribute prov:step is
> considered to be equivalent to the same derivation extended with an
> extra attribute prov:step and associated value "any"."
>
>     Some places use "prov:steps", some "prov:step".
>
>
> 5.4 Traceability
>
>     In the example, this:
>
>         tracedTo(tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215,w3:Consortium)
>
>     appears to trace from an entity to an agent, but the definition
>     appears limited to entity->entity traceability.
>
>     I can see the value in tracing entities to agents if we want to
>     allow that, otherwise remove example with agent.
>
>
> 5.7 Original Source
>
>     I agree with PM note.  What is the use case for this?
>
>
> ======================================================================
>
> Part II
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/prov-dm-constraints.html 
>
>
> 2.1.1 "...after which it no longer becomes available for use."
>
>     ...after which it is no longer avaiable for use.
>
>
> 2.2 "Indeed, we previously defined entities are things in the world
> one wants to provide provenance for;"
>
>     ...defined entities as things...
>
>
> 2.3 "...can be made from descriptoins conformant..."
>
>    ...descriptions...
>
>
> 7. " Section 5 introduce constraints on descriptions..."
>
>    ...introduces...
>
>
> ======================================================================
>
> Part III
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/prov-asn.html 
>
>
>
> Relation "PROV-DM relatiosn can be generation..."
>
>     ...relations...
>
>
> ======================================================================
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 05:29:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:57 GMT