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

Re: PROV-DM Simplication Reviewer Feedback...

From: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 06:25:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMFz4jgKTaKFQu+Rk9xuK_iJSdu1D8dKezyAeX2VpiKgzgecvw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Yes please close.

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> Paolo and I have made changes following your feedback.
> Our responses can be found below.
>
> This now completes WD4. Notes have been inserted in the document,
> which we will tackle as part of WD5.
>
> We are proposing to close ISSUE-274. Let us know if this is fine with you.
> Regards,
> Luc
>
>
>
>> My apologies for being so late on providing reviewer feedback.
>>
>> Overall I enjoyed the PROV-DM document, I felt that the authors have
>> done an incredible job helping readers easily relate concepts in the
>> data model.  Here are my comments and suggestions.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>> ~~~
>>
>> Introduction
>>
>> I agreed with the discussion thread on changes to the introduction
>> that introduced the purpose of the data model to describe provenance
>> in natural language.
>>
>> Section 2.3 – I have mixed feelings about bringing out these concepts,
>> they don’t tie into the example and collections isn’t mentioned again
>> until section 5.8.  While they are important perhaps could this
>> section be left out of section 2?
>
> This comment needs to be re-considered later. At this stage, I would
> prefer to keep these concepts there, until the model is completely
> finalized. We could reassess then.
>
>
>>
>> Section 3 Example
>>
>> Prior to the auditor example could an ultra simple example debuting an
>> agent, process and entity something like “w3:Consortium publishes a
>> technical report”?
>
> Added sentence, at the beginning of section 3.
>
>
>>
>> I’m wondering if the detailed auditor provenance example could be
>> introduced first in a human readable story format prior to the
>> bulleted list that highlights the specific provenance related
>> concepts.
>
> Added descriptions in section 3.1 and 3.2.
>
>>
>> In the example  use of the somewhat cryptic working draft names
>> “tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215” “tr:WD-prov-dm-20111018”  is a bit difficult
>> to following because I found myself mentally parsing the document
>> names to keep track of the different documents.   While this might be
>> less realistic something like model-rev1.html, model-rev2.html might
>> illustrate the same ideas.
>
> The whole point was to use real identifiers, to be close to "scruffy
> provenance".
>
>
>>
>> I am wondering if it might be more intuitive if the provenance graphic
>> illustration preceeded the PROV-ASN notation.  It provides a graphic
>> that a person can study as they study the PROV-DM assertions in
>> PROV-ASN notation.
>
> It was difficult to reorganize, since we needed to introduce the
> various concepts. So, instead, a sentence introduces the graphical
>
> notation.
>
>>
>> The graphic illustration seems to capture all the examples of
>> provenance from the bulleted list while the PROV-DM assertions in
>> PROV-ASN seem to be either incomplete (there isn’t a one to one
>> correspondence to follow from the example to the PROV-DM assertions.
>
> I am not sure I understand.
> Need to get Eric to point to concrete differences.
>
>
>>
>> 3.2  Great job bringing in the concept of viewing other perspectives
>> on the same example.
>>
>> 4.2  Activity names in the table need updating.
>>
>
>  which names in the table?
>
>
>> 4.3.3.5  prov:location – Could we change the wording slightly to say
>> that Location is loosely based on an ISO 19112 but can also refer to
>> non-geographic places such as a directory or row/column?  The specific
>> definition from ISO19112 is location:
>> identifiable geographic place  EXAMPLE “Eiffel Tower”, “Madrid”,
>> “California””
>>
>
> Updated location definition to allow for non-geographic places.
>
>
>
> On 23/02/2012 09:32, Eric Stephan wrote:
>>
>> My apologies for being so late on providing reviewer feedback.
>>
>> Overall I enjoyed the PROV-DM document, I felt that the authors have
>> done an incredible job helping readers easily relate concepts in the
>> data model.  Here are my comments and suggestions.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>> ~~~
>>
>> Introduction
>>
>> I agreed with the discussion thread on changes to the introduction
>> that introduced the purpose of the data model to describe provenance
>> in natural language.
>>
>> Section 2.3 – I have mixed feelings about bringing out these concepts,
>> they don’t tie into the example and collections isn’t mentioned again
>> until section 5.8.  While they are important perhaps could this
>> section be left out of section 2?
>>
>> Section 3 Example
>>
>> Prior to the auditor example could an ultra simple example debuting an
>> agent, process and entity something like “w3:Consortium publishes a
>> technical report”?
>>
>> I’m wondering if the detailed auditor provenance example could be
>> introduced first in a human readable story format prior to the
>> bulleted list that highlights the specific provenance related
>> concepts.
>>
>> In the example  use of the somewhat cryptic working draft names
>> “tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215” “tr:WD-prov-dm-20111018”  is a bit difficult
>> to following because I found myself mentally parsing the document
>> names to keep track of the different documents.   While this might be
>> less realistic something like model-rev1.html, model-rev2.html might
>> illustrate the same ideas.
>>
>> I am wondering if it might be more intuitive if the provenance graphic
>> illustration preceeded the PROV-ASN notation.  It provides a graphic
>> that a person can study as they study the PROV-DM assertions in
>> PROV-ASN notation.
>>
>> The graphic illustration seems to capture all the examples of
>> provenance from the bulleted list while the PROV-DM assertions in
>> PROV-ASN seem to be either incomplete (there isn’t a one to one
>> correspondence to follow from the example to the PROV-DM assertions.
>>
>> 3.2  Great job bringing in the concept of viewing other perspectives
>> on the same example.
>>
>> 4.2  Activity names in the table need updating.
>>
>> 4.3.3.5  prov:location – Could we change the wording slightly to say
>> that Location is loosely based on an ISO 19112 but can also refer to
>> non-geographic places such as a directory or row/column?  The specific
>> definition from ISO19112 is location:
>> identifiable geographic place  EXAMPLE “Eiffel Tower”, “Madrid”,
>> “California””
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 14:26:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:58 GMT