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

Re: PROV-AQ updates

From: Olaf Hartig <hartig@informatik.hu-berlin.de>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 18:41:53 +0100
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <1705534.0TIluLI3KT@porty>
Dear Graham,

On Monday 09 January 2012 15:08:38 Graham Klyne wrote:
> Oleg,

   ( ... Olaf ;-)

> Thank you very much for this.  They are all very useful and constructive
> comments, most of which I've adopted as proposed.
> 
> Does the rewording of section 4 para 3 work for you?

Yes
 
> I've deferred adding your suggestion for section 6 (incremental discovery),
> and made an issue of it, as I think I may detect a slight change of
> intended meaning.  I'd like to discuss this with my co-editor.

Sure.

> Individual responses below...

ditto
 
> On 07/01/2012 16:18, Olaf Hartig wrote:
> [...]
> > * Sec.3.1.1: "There may be multiple provenance-service link header
> > fields, and these may appear in the same document as provenance links
> > ..." -- What does "the same document" refer to? Furthermore, I don't
> > understand how a provenance-service link may appear as a provenance
> > link.
> 
> That's a cut-and-paste error: it should have been "same HTTP response".
> 
> I'm a little puzzled by the second part of this comment: provenance-service
> and provenance are separate links.  Is this not clear?

It's clear that provenance-service and provenance are separate links. What I 
wanted to point out was the following: The way the second part of the sentence 
is written, it may be interpreted to says that provenance-service link header 
fields "may appear [somewhere] as provenance link header fields" but what the 
second part of the sentence was meant to say --I guess-- is "provenance-
service link header fields may appear in _a_ HTTP response _in which also_ 
provenance link header fields may appear."  Or maybe even better: "provenance-
service link header fields may appear in _a_ HTTP response _together with_ 
provenance link header fields."
 
> [...]
> > * Sec.3.3: I assume the RDF properties introduced in this section
> > (prov:hasProvenance, prov:hasAnchor, and prov:hasProvenanceService) may
> > not only be used for the resource that is represented as RDF but also
> > for any resource that the RDF representation describes. If that's true,
> > we may want to add a corresponding comment to this section (although I
> > understand that this is not the focus of this section).
> 
> I added this to the initial paragraph: "(The same RDF terms may be used to
> indicate provenance of other resources too, but discussion of such usage is
> beyond the scope of this section.)"

At this point in the text it is not clear what "the same terms" refers to 
(because it is not clear that we introduce terms/properties for this purpose). 
To address this issue, I propose to add the following sentence before the 
brackets:  "For this purpose three new RDF properties, prov:hasProvenance, 
prov:hasAnchor, and prov:hasProvenanceService, are defined in the following. 
(The same properties may ..."
 
> > * Sec.4, 3rd paragraph: "This approach may be preferred when the
> > provenance service cannot specify the form of URIs used for identifying
> > provenance information, or when there may be more than one source of
> > provenance information known to the provenance service." -- While I
> > understand the second case, I have no idea what the first case means.
> 
> I agree, that was hard to follow.
> 
> Is this any better?: "This approach may be preferred when the URIs used for
> identifying provenance information are controlled by someone other than the
> provider of the provenance discovery service, or when there is more than one
> known source of provenance information."

Much better!

> [...]
> > * Sec.6.1, step 1: I propose the following sentence instead: "For a
> > given
> > resource obtain its associated provenance-uri-1  and its associated
> > entity- uri-1 using ..."
> > 
> > * Sec.6.1, step 4: "... find its provenance-URI and continue from Step
> > 1." -- It should be: "... from Step 2."
> > 
> > * Sec.6.1, step 4: I propose to change the Note to: "an HTTP HEAD
> > request for entity-uri-2 may be used ..."
> > 
> > * Sec.6.1: "To reduce the overhead of multiple HTTP requests ..." -- I
> > suggest to consider providing such prov:hasProvenance links as
> > preferred practice and to adjust the paragraph accordingly.
> 
> At the time of writing this, I can't be sure this does not change the
> meaning of the words, so I'm posting this as an issue.

Okay.
 
> > Finally, it would be nice to link my name in the authors list to
> > http://olafhartig.de  ;-)
> 
> Of course! Done.

Thanks,
Olaf

Received on Monday, 9 January 2012 17:42:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:11 UTC