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

Re: Proposal on PROV-DM reorganization

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 22:32:32 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|d38c026a7318540ad9504230e2b06c02o4KMWc08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4FBAB470.6090400@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
CC: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Graham,

I have been experimenting with section 2, and early preview
is visible from

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/working-copy/wd6-prov-dm-with-core.html

Some  responses to your comments.


On 21/05/12 12:15, Graham Klyne wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Re: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDM_ConsensusProposal
>
> I think this proposal is an improvement, though it goes less far than 
> I personally would choose.  I would still prefer a stand-alone 
> document covering the core patterns, but there is apparently no 
> appetite for that within the working group so I shall not push that 
> point.
>
> Beyond that, here are some specific suggestions relating to your 
> proposal:
>
> 1. I'd prefer to see core patterns as a separate top level section 
> rather than a sub-section of the overview.  I feel that would help to 
> convey its role as a self-contained set of related ideas around which 
> the others structures and terms can be used as needed.
>

I now have three subsections in section 2, respectively related to core, 
extended, and components.
I feel they fit well in an overview section. Moving one or all of them 
to the toplevel would lead to a proliferation
of toplevel sections, which I am not keen on.

> 2. I'd like the diagram to be at the *start* of the core patterns, not 
> at the end.  I believe it can provide a mental framework for a reader 
> to relate the concepts as they are described in the ensuing sections.  
> I'd also suggest the diagram (per current DM) be revised to be 
> visually styled more like the one in the PROV-O document.  (I'll help 
> with that if asked.)
>

Yes, it's done.

The diagram was updated, using another tool.
Now, one can possibly improve on the diagrams, but we do not want to 
introduce
an ad-hoc graphical notation. We use UML for all our class diagrams.



> 3. I would not separate Entities/Activities and Derivation into 
> separate sub-sections.  When we talk about using provenance in 
> applications, I note that we most commonly talk about a "provenance 
> trace" - and it is the interconnection of entities, activities, 
> generation and usage that gives us derivation, which in my perception 
> is a central element of a provenance trace.  Thus, I would suggest 
> presenting these concepts together, then introducing agents and 
> associated inter-relationships in a separate sub-section.  I think 
> this is what Tim suggested in the last teleconference.

The reason for keeping this subsection is that I want to parallel the 
component structure.
If people are happy with moving component 3 before component 2 (talk 
about derivations before agents),
I am happy to do so. However, I received some push back.

>
> 4. I'm not sure that "advanced" is the best term for features that are 
> not part of the core pattern.  I can live with it, but I'll also try 
> and come up with some alternatives.

Now using extended.
>
> 5. I'm all for looking to improve modularity of the design, as you 
> also mention in your proposal.
>

It's an important aspect of the DM and therefore has been given an 
overview section in 2.3

> 6. I'm not sure that it really adds any value to mark core patterns 
> throughout the document as you suggest.  Once a reader has 
> internalized the core patterns, I think they're pretty obvious when 
> they occur.
>

The only mark up occurs in tables 3/4, section 5.  I am not proposing to 
do it anywhere else.

Cheers,
Luc

> #g
> -- 
>
>
> On 20/05/2012 11:01, Paul Groth wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> During last week's telcon [1] the chairs were tasked to come-up with a
>> proposal that tried to reflect consensus on reorganization of the data
>> model. This would take into account both Graham's proposal [2] as well
>> as the WG discusion and prior agreements.
>>
>> We've come up with with the following proposal:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDM_ConsensusProposal
>>
>> We hope this reflects a consensus with the working group and something
>> we could proceed on. Is this a good foundation to proceed?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-05-17
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDM_Proposal_for_restructuring
>>
>
Received on Monday, 21 May 2012 21:33:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 21 May 2012 21:33:37 GMT