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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-508: Data Model Table 5 [prov-dm]

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:20:00 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|d4dbb3bf8fb59d6e0f8ef60c5011ca42o8HBK308l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|50584AD0.3030504@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi all,

Find below a draft response to this issue.
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-508_.28Table_5.29
Comments?

Regards,
Luc


      ISSUE-508 (Table 5)

  * Original
    email:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Sep/0098.html
  * Tracker:http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/508
  * Group Response
      o The text indeed required clarification: "core structures have
        their names and parameters highlighted in bold in the second
        column (prov-n representation); expanded structures are not
        represented with a bold font."
      o Indentation of subconcepts had been considered by the editors.
        While it appears beneficial to see Revision, Quotation, and
        Primary Source indented below Derivation, this would lead to
        confusion elsewhere in the table:
          + Plans (in component 3) are subtype of Entity, but entities
            belong to component 1. Indenting Plan under another concept
            would therefore be misleading.
          + Person/Organization/SoftwareAgent could be indented below
            agents. However, our preference is to list core structures
            first, before expanded structures.
          + Finally, Influence could be see as super-relation of many
            relations, but, again, they are spread across components,
            and Influence is regarded as an expanded structures.
      o Overall, there are multiple, conflicting ways of organizing
        table 5. We feel that this order of structures allows components
        to be exposed and core structures to be presented first, without
        attempting to expose a hierarchy of types, which would require
        an entirely different layout.
      o PROV-DM follows the syntax specified by PROV-N. Regarding the
        style of encoding of attributes, this issue is already raised
        against the PROV-N document (issue-533).
  * References:
      o See issue-533:http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/533
  * Implemented
    changes:http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/diff/47d79e48cb4c/model/prov-dm.html
  * <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/diff/47d79e48cb4c/model/prov-dm.html>




    [edit
    <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/index.php?title=ResponsesToPublicComments&action=edit&section=14>]



On 09/10/2012 09:38 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-508: Data Model Table 5   [prov-dm]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/508
>
> Raised by: Luc Moreau
> On product: prov-dm
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/LC_Feedback#Data_Model_Table_5
>
> ISSUE-463
>
> The bolded rows have some attributes listed in bold and some in normal font, presumably to indicate mandatory/optional status. This should be mentioned in the text.
>
> The child relationships (e.g., revision) would be easier to see if their name were indented relative to their parent.
>
> This table highlights the inconsistent attribute syntax. The combined use of positional attributes and attribute/value pairs (used for context-dependent optional attributes) is a little awkward.
>
>
>
>

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2012 10:20:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 September 2012 10:20:39 GMT