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

Re: FW: Review of Provenance DM documents

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:11:56 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|8b8a9bfcc61109f787bb14ba9d9a40b6o2MDBx08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F6C769C.5030305@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Sam Coppens UGent <sam.coppens@ugent.be>
CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Sam,

Thanks for your input. We have made changes to the latest editor's draft to
address some of your suggestions.  Responses to your specific comments
related to part 1 appear below. (We still have to work on part 2 and 3)

Luc

[1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html

 >
 > 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.
 >

The term "upgrade path" was replaced by "refinement".

The last section reuses the term. As the introduction states it, this
is discussed in part 2.



 >
 >
 > 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`.
 >
 >


More work to be done on this, to decide how we handle accounts.
There is no reference to resource in the definition.

 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > 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.
 >
 >

This sentence is now removed from section 4.6.1.
A sentence to that effect already exists in 4.6.2.

 >
 > 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.
 >

Definition of Original Source has been revised. It should avoid the 
ambiguity.



 >
 >
 > 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.`
 >

The latter sentence is a refinement of the previous one for digital 
entities.
I think this is OK.
 >
 >
 > 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).
 >

on -> of
 >
 >
 > 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.`
 >

Text updated.
 >
 >
 >


On 03/08/2012 04:31 PM, Sam Coppens UGent wrote:
>
> 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/>
>

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Friday, 23 March 2012 13:12:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:59 GMT