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

Fwd: FW: Review of Provenance DM documents

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 21:19:57 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|206ca6b5e31243b4b153ceacb5d888edo27LLI08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F59227D.6030205@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>

Thanks Sam,

Tracker, this is ISSUE-274.

Luc

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	FW: Review of Provenance DM documents
Date: 	Thu, 8 Mar 2012 17:31:44 +0100
From: 	Sam Coppens UGent <sam.coppens@ugent.be>
To: 	'Luc Moreau' <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>



Hello Luc,

I send my review for PROV-DM again, because I am not sure you received 
it. Two weeks ago, I posted this to the prov mailing list, but with a 
different email address than the one I am listed on at W3C, because of a 
mail server crash. Because of this, it took some days before it was 
distributed to the PROV list. This is, I think, the reason my review 
wasn`t good received.

In mean time, the mail server is up again and if you want I can send it 
again to the prov mailing list, this time using the right email address.

Best,

Sam

--
Sam Coppens

Ghent University - IBBT
Faculty of Engineering
Department of Electronics and Information Systems
Multimedia Lab

Gaston Crommenlaan 8 bus 201
B-9050 Ledeberg-Ghent
Belgium

t: +32 9 33 14959
f: +32 9 33 14896
t secr: +32 9 33 14911
e: sam.coppens@ugent.be <mailto:sam.coppens@ugent.be> or 
samcoppens@hotmail.com <mailto:samcoppens@hotmail.com>


URL: http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be 
<http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be/>

*From:* Sam Coppens UGent [mailto:sam.coppens@ugent.be]
*Sent:* Thursday, March 01, 2012 10:38 AM
*To:* 'public-prov-wg@w3.org'
*Subject:* Review of Provenance DM documents

Hello,

Here is my review of the PROV-DM documents.

Best,

Sam

In general:

The overall structure of the document is very clear and things are now 
nicely separated (data model, its constraints and its expression in 
PROV-ASN). This allows to find faster the information needed.

All three documents are well written and understandable. In general, I 
would say it is a very good improvement over the previous version where 
everything was in 1 document.  I would recommend this version to become 
the editor`s draft.

PROV-DM part 1:

General Remarks:

In Section 1 , the paragraph right in front of section 1.1 talks about 
an `upgrade path` to enrich simple provenance with extra descriptions. 
The notion of an `upgrade path` must be clarified, because it is nowhere 
used in the remainder of the document, neither in PROV-DM part 2. It is 
confusing at the moment.

Section 2, Subsection2.3: AccountEntity very shortly explained here. The 
notion of account is better specified in PROV-DM part 2. From the 
provided definition here it is not clear that the provenance of the same 
entity can be expressed as different accounts. The definition of 
AccountEntity also includes ` resource`, which is quite confusing, 
because it is not part of the provenance terminilogy. Maybe replace it 
by `Entity`.

Section 3, Subsection 3.1: The publication activity ex:pub1  ex:pub2 
used a publication request (ar3:0111);

Section 4, Subsection 4.1.4: `A separate PROV-DM relation is used to 
associate a note with something that is identifiable (see Section on 
annotation). A given note may be associated with multiple identifiable 
things.`  `Things` is confusing here. It is maybe better to say entity 
and/or activity. `Thing` brings in some semantics.

Section 5, Subsection 5.7: The added value of `Original Source` over 
`Traceability` is not clear. It should be better explained why we need 
this relation. IMO, it could be expressed as a traceability relation or 
a specialization of the traceability relation.

Spelling Corrections:

Section 2, Subsection 2.1: Activity definition: two phrases after each 
other are the same: `An activity is anything that can operate on 
entities. In particular, activities may produce, consume, or transform 
an entity. Activities that operate on digital entities may for example 
move, copy, or duplicate them. Activities that operate on digital 
entities may for example move, copy, or duplicate them.`

Section 2, Subsection 2.2: Usage definition: 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).

Section 4, Subsection 4.1.4: example: `The note is associated with the 
entity tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215 previously introduced (hasAnnotation is 
discussed in Section Annotation). The note's identifier and attributes 
are declares declared in a separate namespace denoted by prefix ex2.`

PROV-DM part 2:

General Remarks:

Section 1 & Section 2: These two sections are further refinements of the 
already explained data model. IMO, these sections could be included in 
PROV-DM part 1. The event based perspective on provenance is part of the 
core prov-dm model. Then PROV-DM part 2 focusses on the additional 
constraints.

Section 2, Subsection 2.2: The example of different perspectives on a 
resource with a URL is essential in making accounts of provenance clear. 
What still needs some attention in the document is the relation entity 
-- entity record and how they are identified and which of these two 
identifiers are referred to when pointing to an entity. An example would 
make it clear. (maybe PROV-DM part 1 is a better place to explain this)

Spelling Corrections:

Section 4, Intro: In this section, we revisit elements and relations of 
PROV-DM, and examine and examine the constraints associated with their 
definitions.

Section 4, Subsection 4.2.1: This entity become becomes available for 
usage after this instantaneous event.

Section 4, Subsection 4.2.6: precise-1 derivation is richer than an 
imprecise-1 derivation, itself, being more informative that an 
imprecise-n derivation_._ Hence, the following implications hold.

Section 6, Intro:  We anticipate that verification algorithms could be 
developedm, though this verification is outside the scope of this 
specification.

PROV-DM part 3:

General Remarks:

No Remarks.

Spelling Corrections:

Section 3, Subsection 3.2.7: `A specialization relation`s text matches 
the specializationExpression_ _production.`

--
Sam Coppens

Ghent University - IBBT
Faculty of Engineering
Department of Electronics and Information Systems
Multimedia Lab

Gaston Crommenlaan 8 bus 201
B-9050 Ledeberg-Ghent
Belgium

t: +32 9 33 14959
f: +32 9 33 14896
t secr: +32 9 33 14911
e: sam.coppens@ugent.be <mailto:sam.coppens@ugent.be> or 
samcoppens@hotmail.com <mailto:samcoppens@hotmail.com>


URL: http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be 
<http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be/>
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 21:21:47 GMT

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