Re: PROV-ISSUE-654 (primer-ducharme): Various clarifications and comments (Bob DuCharme) [Primer]

Nice response.

Paul


On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Miles, Simon <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I propose the following response to Bob Ducharme's comments on the primer.
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsPR#ISSUE-654
>
> Please let me know if you are happy with this response. Given the tight
> timescale, I suggest that I send this to him for acknowledgement following
> the Thursday telecon unless there are objections.
>
> thanks,
> Simon
>
> Dr Simon Miles
> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
>
> Evolutionary Testing of Autonomous Software Agents:
> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1370/
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker [sysbot+tracker@w3.org]
> Sent: 26 March 2013 15:26
> To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: PROV-ISSUE-654 (primer-ducharme): Various clarifications and
> comments (Bob DuCharme) [Primer]
>
> PROV-ISSUE-654 (primer-ducharme): Various clarifications and comments (Bob
> DuCharme) [Primer]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/654
>
> Raised by: Simon Miles
> On product: Primer
>
> Bob DuCharme's comments on the primer
>
> >From email:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2013Mar/0013.html
>
> The document calls section 2 "intuitive" four times--I would say show,
> don't tell, or at least don't tell four times. "High-level" would be
> more accurate (and more modest). Section 2 is actually not that
> intuitive, because it covers a lot of material at a pretty abstract
> level. The Primer is much easier to follow once you get to section 3.
>
> To make it clearer about how helpful section 3 will be, the bulleted
> list at the end of section 1 could be more explicit that the first two
> bullets refer to the remaining sections of the document ("section 2
> gives a high-level overview of PROV concepts...") so that the reader
> knows when they're getting to the more concrete example. You could even
> add to the bullet about section 3 something like "in which a blogger
> investigates the provenance of a newspaper article to track down a
> potential error".
>
> "There are other kinds of metadata that is not provenance" that are not
> provenance
>
> "the author of an article may attribute that article to themselves" the
> authors (because of the plural "themselves")
>
> "the agency also wish to know" wishes
>
> If some of the example qnames were renamed to be less generic, it would
> make section 3 easier to follow. For example, "ex:article" looks more
> like a class name; ex:article1001 looks more clearly like the identifier
> for a specific article.
>
> An added bonus for section 3.9 could be some RDFa syntax for the first
> example, given that it's about Betty embedding provenance information in
> her blog entry. Something like this, which rdflib confirmed to me gets
> translated to the appropriate triples:
>
>    <p>According to a recent government report,</p>
>      <blockquote about="ex:quoteInBlogEntry" property="prov:value"
>                  typeof="prov:Entity">Smaller cities have more crime
> than larger ones</blockquote>
>      <span about="ex:quoteInBlogEntry" rel="prov:wasQuotedFrom"
> href="ex:article"/>
>
> In fact, a little PROV-RDFa cookbook, perhaps as a separate document or
> even blog entry, could help to jumpstart the use of PROV among the
> Bettys of the world.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
Assistant Professor
- Web & Media Group | Department of Computer Science
- The Network Institute
VU University Amsterdam