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: Tue, 22 May 2012 09:37:15 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|e06583684e4c8abdf6ee9a010411f3b9o4L9bM08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4FBB503B.20205@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>
Graham,

A further point: UML diagrams in sections 1, 2, and 3 now make the core 
explicit.
Introductory text for these still need to be adapted.
Feedback welcome.

Luc

On 22/05/2012 07:16, Graham Klyne wrote:
> Luc,
>
> I just took a quick look.  I think this is a useful improvement for 
> someone approaching provenance.  I won't repeat here all the comments 
> I made previously since you indicate this is a work-in-progress.
>
> My main comment on your structure is that I think derivation in 
> section 2 should be "up there" with entity and activity - I would 
> probably aim to use this section to introduce the notion of a 
> provenance trace.  Even if derivation is treated separately in section 
> 5, for the introduction I think it's part of the entity-activity 
> pattern.  (This comment is based on an understanding that derivation 
> is an entity-entity relation that indicates there is a chain of 
> used/generated property pairs between the entities.  But this isn't 
> stated explicitly - am I misunderstanding something here?)
>
> I can't see any purpose served by table 2.
>
> In table 3, I'd suggest dropping the tick-columns for core/extended 
> structures - I think the section cross-references are sufficient 
> (though I note that some link to the wrong place - but I assume that's 
> because this is WIP).  I'd also suggest including forward links to the 
> corresponding sub-sections in section 5.
>
> I think your section 2 can be made into a compact and 
> easily-assimilated overview of core provenance structure.  Looking at 
> this, I think the light-touch treatment here of the extension 
> structures is also useful (which is back-tracking slightly on one of 
> my earlier comments).  If we go ahead with this broad structure, I'll 
> come back later and make more detailed editorial suggestions as seems 
> appropriate.
>
> I haven't yet looked in detail at the subsequent sections.  My main 
> structural criteria for these would be that specific entries are 
> easily located when the document is used for reference purposes, and 
> the document structure seems to provide that.
>
> With reference to your comments re. section 3 - I would be inclined to 
> move it into the introduction section, but also to trim the 
> explanation and rely more on the referenced prov-n document.  A brief 
> description of the purpose of PROV-N, a link to the specification and 
> maybe the examples should be enough, I think.
>
> I (still) think the position of the example (section 4) between the 
> overview (section 2) and the more detailed descriptions (section 5) 
> breaks the flow of the reference material.  I think this is less of a 
> problem than it was, as the first-time developer can switch from 
> "sequential reading mode" to "reference mode"
>
> #g
> -- 
>
>
> On 21/05/2012 22:32, Luc Moreau wrote:
>> 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 Tuesday, 22 May 2012 08:38:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 08:38:21 GMT