Re: comments on PROV Primer and Overview

Looks good to me!

My RDFa suggestion was more of a brainstorming idea about marketing 
PROV, so a separate document would be a perfectly understandable place 
for it.

And thanks for adding my name to the Acknowledgements. I can see that 
I'm in some distinguished company.

Bob


On 4/5/2013 11:06 AM, Miles, Simon wrote:
> Hello Bob,
>
> Thanks again for your comments on PROV Primer and PROV Overview (below). The Working Group have discussed the primer issues you raised. For almost all suggestions and corrections in the mail, we agree that these are improvements that should be made.
>
> Specifically, we've made the following changes to the primer:
>   - We have reduced the number of uses of "intuitive" to describe Section 2, and referred to it as "high-level" in the introduction contents summary.
>   - We have added references to the sections being described in the introduction contents summary (bullet list), as suggested.
>   - We have fixed the typos indicated.
>   - We have added numeric suffixes to more entities and activities to make clear that they are instances rather than classes of occurrence, e.g. composition1, compile1.
>
> See the latest primer including these changes at:
>    https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/Primer.html
>
> For the suggestion of adding an RDFa example, while this would be a nice addition, we feel it would be too specific to a technology not covered anywhere else in the primer (or other PROV specs). It would be better provided as a separate document or part of the group's FAQ, and we will consider creating this, though preparing the specs will take priority.
>
> Can you let us know, for the official W3C records, whether you are happy with this response?
>
> thanks,
> Simon
>
> Dr Simon Miles
> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
>
> Modelling the Provenance of Data in Autonomous Systems:
> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1264/
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Miles, Simon
> Sent: 26 March 2013 15:24
> To: Bob DuCharme; public-prov-comments@w3.org
> Subject: RE: comments on PROV Primer and Overview
>
> Hello Bob,
>
> Thanks very much for reading the primer and for the feedback. A lot of your suggestions sound good, and thanks for picking up the typos. We'll discuss your email in the Working Group and get back to you with a proper response soon.
>
> thanks again,
> Simon
>
> Dr Simon Miles
> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
>
> Efficient Multi-Granularity Service Composition:
> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1396/
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Bob DuCharme [bob@snee.com]
> Sent: 22 March 2013 14:26
> To: public-prov-comments@w3.org
> Subject: comments on PROV Primer and Overview
>
> Great job. I knew nothing about PROV other than its general goals, so I
> was probably a good guinea pig to read the Primer. Because it said to
> start with the Overview, I did.
>
> ------ Notes on http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-prov-overview-20130312/------
>
> typos: defintions, Dublic (Spinal Tap reference: did you mean "Dubly"?),
> "these these", "that each document on" (that each document is on?),
>
> Table in section 2: In the Document column, several sentences are
> missing periods at the end.
>
> The PROV-DICTIONARY summary should have a few more words about why this
> document exists for the benefit of those reading this document as their
> very first PROV document, because the notion of collection hasn't been
> introduced yet.
>
> PROV-LINKS entry on the table: same comment, but about bundles. (Section
> 2 further on has a better short explanation of this document's purpose.)
>
> ------ Notes on http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-primer/ ------
>
> 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.
>
> Again, great work and I look forward to using PROV.
>
> Bob DuCharme
>
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 5 April 2013 15:44:02 UTC