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

Re: pairs of implementations?

From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:31:18 -0600
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D42F0020-A406-4F5A-B511-C0D1BAA83FE2@rpi.edu>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
It looks like we can only have 5 options in the grid question, and each question can only have one answer.

currently the options are
1) Consumes
2) Produces
3) Consumes and Produces
4) Does not Support

I could add another option to this question above, rephrase the options from the question above, or add another question for this question.

Option1:

Add new option to the list above, "Consumes and Produces Externally Generated Provenance".

Option 2:

Add "Externally Generated Provenance" after "Consumes" in all options to the above question.

Option 3:

Create a new question "Known Support for Consumption of Externally Generated Provenance by Feature" with options "Known to Support | Not Known to Support" for each feature.  This would be another grid question and would have just the two options.

--Stephan

On Oct 31, 2012, at 6:46 PM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:

> 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 15:31:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 1 November 2012 15:31:46 GMT