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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-490 (prov-constraints-lc-editorial): PROV-CONSTRAINTS pre-Last Call editorial issues [prov-dm-constraints]

From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 17:57:11 +0100
Message-Id: <ECAD06B6-3046-43CF-8FBC-11F0B3CCBBCF@inf.ed.ac.uk>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi,

This pre-LC issue seems to still be open.  It seems to now be addressed, except for some suggestions/comments about figures that remain in the LC working draft as "notes".  I propose to close it if there is no objection in the next 24 hours.

--James

On Aug 30, 2012, at 7:15 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:

> PROV-ISSUE-490 (prov-constraints-lc-editorial): PROV-CONSTRAINTS pre-Last Call editorial issues [prov-dm-constraints]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/490
> 
> Raised by: James Cheney
> On product: prov-dm-constraints
> 
> This issue collects remaining editorial issues in PROV-CONSTRAINTS to remind editors to fix them before last call release.
> 
> Some of these may already be done; they were listed as needing work in the reviews, though.
> 
> 1.  Make rule names uniform, as suggested by Paul.
> 
> 2.  Tim's suggestions about the figures. 
> 
> 3.  Stian's concern about the summary table and figures.
> 
> -- Details --
> 
> 
> 1. Make rule names uniform, as suggested by Paul:
> 
>> 
>> Minor Notes:
>> 
>> - PROV objects or prov constructs - check the consistency on this
>> - inconsistency with naming. Do you always want to end inference with
>> "-inference". See Inference 11 (derivation-generation-use) and
>> Inference 10 (wasEndedBy-inference)
>> 
> 
> The terminology 'prov construct'  is not present (anymore) in the document.
> 
> I updated some of the names, but still:
> TODO: make rule names more uniform.
> 
> 2.  Update figures following suggestions from Tim:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 37)
>> 
>> Figure 1
>> I would think that the label numbering on the activities would be
>> reversed: a1 starts before a2 starts before a3. 
>> 
>> suggest changing labeling for more natural order.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>> 
>> 52)
>> 
>> The visual style in Figure 2(a), where the orange constraint triangle
>>> extends to touch the events that it orders, is not used in the
>>> remaining portions of the figure. 
>> 
>> suggest to carry this convention into the rest of the subfigures.
>> 
> 
>> 53)
>> 
>> Figure 2
>> 
>> 
>> "are represented by vertical dotted lines (, or intersecting usage and generation edges)"
>> 
>> 
>> There seems to be visual ambiguity in the visual style convention. Is
>> the time of the usage/generation at the location the (Activity,Entity)
>> arrow crosses the vertical line? How does that intersection point
>> differ from the point that the line connects to the activity (for
>> generation) or entity (for usage)? If these two points were made one
>> in the same, would there be any loss of information? Eliminating any
>> visual distinctions that are not encoding the underlying model will
>> help avoid confusion and distraction while reading the figures. 
>> 
>> 
>> 54)
>> 
>> 
>> Figure2
>> 
>> A note on my note: "Miscellanous suggestions about figures (originally from Tim Lebo):"
>> 
>> The suggestion is to make the diagonal solid arrow be dotted, like the vertical "usage" line.
>> 
>> 
>> Further, I'd suggest to make the timeline a solid line, to distinguish from the event style.
>> 
>> What is the purpose of the dotted horizontal line on the bottom of each subfigure?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Suggest to make the start and end vertical lines BLUE to match the activity.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 3.  Stian's concern about the summary table:
> 
>> 
>> 2.3 Summary of constraints..
>> 
>> 
>> This table is utterly confusing to me as it is not a summary, it does
>> not tell me anything, and I don't understand the columns. (Not helped
>> by the lack of colours and borders on a print out!)
>> 
>> I can see it is useful to have a kind of index of all the constraints,
>> but the table needs some work to be understandable. In the web version
>> it is kind-of OK, since the constraints have human readable names -
>> but is there a reason to keep the third column rather than simple
>> horisontal headers? Perhaps even the Type/Relation column could be
>> done as headers?
>> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 5.2.2 Entity constraints
>> 
>> Figure 3b) implies that the deriving activity starts *after* usage and
>> finishes *before* generation. extend blue box to extend beyond both
>> dotted vertical lines.
>> 
>> I don't understand 3c), something seems to be missing. The lower arrow
>> from e2 has no label (was derived from?), and there are no activities.
>> 
> 
> 
>> Constraint 38 and 40 are not shown in Figure 3.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Figure 5a) is very difficult to understand, as the extent of the two
>> triangles is not shown. Could this be added, such as in 2a)?
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 16:57:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:20 UTC