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

Re: pairs of implementations?

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 01:46:56 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRqM+JRzw0UYS_ejhqwbaVjbu+Gz=quEc4mEH6gACfLabQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Stephan,

I wonder if it would be possible to put a check box or something by each
feature so people can note where a particular feature was known to be used
by another tool?

Paul

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote:

>  Checking in to see if the current questionnaire paragraph text
>
>  "Has this implementation been used to consume a prov serialization
> generated by another tool?  If so, please  identify the other tool and
> describe how it was used."
>
>  is good enough for our purposes or if we should perhaps re-word the
> question or add some additional questions.
>
>  --Stephan
>
>  On Oct 22, 2012, at 2:41 AM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote:
>
>
>  On Oct 19, 2012, at 12:41 PM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:
>
> Could we ask that as well?
>
>
>  We currently have a paragraph question on provenance exchange.
>
>  Question title: Provenance Exchange
>
>  Help Text: Has this implementation been used to consume a prov
> serialization generated by another tool?  If so, please  identify the other
> tool and describe how it was used.
>
>  Perhaps with some tweaking to this question we will have what we need.
>
>  As for updating the per-feature support question...
>
>  Google Forms is pretty limited and right the question is structured as a
> Grid where the user can make one and only one selection for each feature
> (row in grid) from the following options (columns in the grid): Consumes,
> Produces, Produces and Consumes, Does not Support.
>
>  I do not think we can change the question so the user can make multiple
> selections for any given feature or have any write-in options.  If we add
> another column that explicitly asks about consumption of
> externally-produced provenance; the user will be unable to specify any
> further info such as what external tool produced said feature serialization
> or in what language (PROV-N, PROV-O, PROV-XML).
>
>  Because of the limitations of the Grid question type I think we should
> use paragraph text questions to elicit feedback on our more complex
> questions such as proof of language-specific consumption of externally
> generated provenance features.
>
>  --Stephan
>
>
>
>  Also, I'm wondering for the constraints whether we need to ask on a per
> constraint basis given that we have this testing procedure approach. Maybe
> that section can be reduced...
>
>  thanks
> Paul
>
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote:
>
>> we ask on a per-feature basis if it consumes, but we don't explicitly say
>> 'from another implementation'.
>>
>> --Stephan
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Stephan,
>> >
>> > I was looking but couldn't seem to find it. Do we ask whether a
>> particular implementation consumes provenance information from another
>> implementation on a per feature basis?
>> >
>> > cheers
>> > Paul
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>  --
> --
> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
> Assistant Professor
> - Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group |
>   Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
> - The Network Institute
> VU University Amsterdam
>
>
>
>


-- 
--
Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
Assistant Professor
- Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group |
  Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
- The Network Institute
VU University Amsterdam
Received on Thursday, 1 November 2012 00:47:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 1 November 2012 00:47:24 GMT