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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-229 (Refactor-and-sub-edit): Document would benefit from refactoring and editing [prov-dm]

From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:55:53 +0000
Message-ID: <4F27D6C9.8050902@ncl.ac.uk>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi,

can someone clarify the outcome of the vote on the "universe of discourse" (UoD) proposals? (I missed the call and that's not clear 
from the minutes)
I thought at this point we have a correct and complete list.
I would also want to clarify waht UoD means. Is it "all and only the things whose provenance can be expressed using PROV-DM"?

IMO attributes are a "weak entity", they don't really stand on their own.  But the proposed changes are purely syntactic, right? 
i.e. structured vs flat terms. So I don't see it as a priority.

there are indeed strange phrasings here and there but editing /is/ ongoing and pretty much continuous. But I would hesitate to 
restructure the entire doc around this new UoD idea, at least until it settles.

Thanks, -Paolo



On 1/31/12 9:15 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Hi Graham,
>
> Some comments inline.
>
> On 01/30/2012 10:48 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-229 (Refactor-and-sub-edit): Document would benefit from refactoring and editing [prov-dm]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/229
>>
>> Raised by: Graham Klyne
>> On product: prov-dm
>>
>> I am finding some of the text to be repetitive, confusing and in some cases strangely phrased.  I think a main goal of this document needs to be to offer an approachable description of the underlying data model and ASN notation that can be used by developers and information designers.  I think the document could benefit from a serious round of sub-editing (without intending to change the substantive content).
>>
> It would be useful if you (maybe face to face in AMS) could point to
> sections which you find repetitive, confusion and strangely phrased. We
> can work on them.
>> I also think that a refactoring of the DM concepts (without fundamentally changing the underlying intended semantics) could help to eliminate a lot of repetitive text.  These comments relate to the recent "domain of discourse" vote, but I'm coming at this from a more holistic perspective.
>>
>> It seems to me that the domain of discourse contains the following concepts:
>>     Entity
>>     Activity
>>     Agent
>>     Event
>>     Plan
>>     Account
>>
> Definetely no agreement for account.
> To add to the list collection.
>> in that these are the various things about which the provenance language aims to make assertions, and that all of these could be considered types of Entity (with the possible exception of Event).  I think we've already established that most if not all of these are kinds of entity.
>>
>> If the descriptions were refactored around such a structure, I believe much of the repetitive description of attributes could be focused in one place.  I would be inclined to separate attributes from the other type declarations, so we'd end up with primitive ASM expressions like these:
>>
>>     Entity(id)
>>     Activity(id, start?, end?)
>>     Agent(id)
>>     Plan(id)
>>     Event(Id, time?)
>>     Account(id)
>>     Attributes(id, [attr1=val1, attr2=val2, ...])
>>
>>
> I don't understand what you save with this syntactic rewriting. Can you
> clarify?
>> Where the Attributes expression could be applied to any of the preceding concepts, and the description of attributes would consequently be needed only once.  The main objection I see to this is that it would mean that, say, the ASN expression:
>>
>>     Entity(id, [attr1=val1, attr2=val2, ...])
>>
>> would be replaced by two expressions:
>>
>>     Entity(id)
>>     Attributes(id, [attr1=val1, attr2=val2, ...])
>>
>> I would counter this by having the ASN (but not the underlying model) allow the first form as a syntactic sugar for the second.
>>
>>
> This seems to imply that Attributes, can be explain by themselves, that
> they are standalone.  Not sure this still corresponds to this idea of
> characterized thing we had for entity.
>
>> I also felt that the handling of Activity start and end was not consistent:  according to the text, the times given correspond to Events.  So why not have them *be* Events - that would mean we have a total of 6 event types rather than just 4, but the description of the "Lamport clock" timelines could be focused on the description of Event alone.
>>
> If I understand correctly,  that's exactly the purpose of ISSUE-207.
>
>
> I don't understand however, why it gives you 6 event types rather than 4.
>> ...
>>
>> I think all of this could be done with minimal change to the underlying semantics, and that coupled with a significant round of sub-editing and reorganization of some of the text could lead to a document that is much easier to follow.
>>
> Once the discussion on identifiers converges, including agreement on
> accounts, then we can undertake this revision.
> That's the plan for WD4.
>
> Luc
>> #g
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>


-- 
-----------  ~oo~  --------------
Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org
School of Computing Science, Newcastle University,  UK
http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2012 11:56:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:53 GMT