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 11:56:30 -0600
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9E860756-710F-4F96-B160-40E05775A95B@rpi.edu>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
I added a new grid question to the questionnaire:

title: Known Support for Externally Generated Provenance Features
helper text: Has this implementation been shown to consume provenance features generated by another implementation?

option 1: Known to Support
option 2: Not Known to Support

The question is required and the set of rows matches features in Term Coverage question.

--Stephan

On Nov 1, 2012, at 11:33 AM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:

> Hi Stephan,
> 
> I think option 3 is nice.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> --
> 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 17:56:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 1 November 2012 17:56:59 GMT