RE: Primer WD2 ready for review

Hi Luc,

Thanks for the review. We'll take the comments into account.

With regard to the buttons for hiding/showing different example formats (as in the OWL primer), yes, this is in the plan, but was not intended for the April release. If you have pointers to documentation on how to technically achieve this, I'd be grateful, as I couldn't find the necessary details in my brief investigations so far.


Dr Simon Miles
Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166

Requirements for Provenance on the Web:

From: Luc Moreau []
Sent: 04 April 2012 09:51
Subject: Re: Primer WD2 ready for review

Hi Simon, Yolanda,

The primer reads nicely. It seems to have captured the right set of
concepts and explained them at the right level.

There was a discussion of whether collections should be included in
the primer. I don't believe so.  My comment is related to what I said
about the prov-o document: if collections are added to the primer, I
think it would give too much importance to this concept and associated
relations.  There should be a *separate* HOWTO document on collections.

>From my viewpoint, the only change I would like to see implemented
before release is the introduction of a figure (compliant with PROV
"style") illustrating the example.  Note: one or more figures left to
editorial discretion.

I also believe that the PRIMER should not focus just on rdf
representation but on the others too. The prov-n examples in appendix
are not very satisfactory. Instead, buttons showing/hiding examples in
rdf, xml, prov-n should be used.  Text also will have to be changed at
many places accordingly. I am OK if this change takes place after this
release (synchronized with last call).


- In constrast to the DM and PROV-O, the primer talks about "roles" rather than "qualified involvement" in general. The rationale is that it is a more intuitive starting point for readers new to PROV. However, two (internal WG) reviewers have both suggested that "qualified involvement" should be discussed instead. What is your opinion?

I don't understand this question. Roles are presented here as provdm:roles.  This seems OK to me.

- Do you think the document is accessible to all the major communities who would want to adopt PROV or, if not, where are the deficiencies?

I think so.

- Can the document be released as a next public working draft? If no, what are the blocking issues?

Yes to be released, but with a figure illustrating the example.

Minor comments:

- abstract: I am not sure about the use of "non-normative".
    We should not consider this document as less normative than the others
    simply because it is a W3C NOTE (which is an artifact of the charter

   The term 'normative' is used several times.

- Likewise, I don't think you should use the word 'standard'.
  Instead use 'specification'.

- section 1: "its representation in the PROV Ontology"
   I don't think we are representing the data model in the ontology.
   We express it, we map it?

- personally, I don't like the use of "you/your". It occurs so few
  times that it could be removed.

- section 2: this not an ER diagram but a UML class diagram I believe.

- section 2.2: first occurrence of the word 'attribute'. Should we
  have seen it before?

- section 2.3: '... generate entities mid-way through occuring'????

- section 2.4: agent ... "... take an active role ..." we dropped active
   from the prov-dm definition.

- of a that chart

- 2.6: an description -> a description

- section 3: title to change when using other representations

- section 3.5:  "was controlled by" (also used elsewhere)
    we move away from control. Should another term be used?

- section 3.6:  "she contacts the government" ;-)
  brave Betty!  ->  "she contacts the government agency"

- section 3.7.
  I find the example of plan a bit ambiguous, since one could
  see the corrections as an input to the editing process.
  But then, it's not corrections, but correction instructions,
  but the prefixed name is ex:corrections. So as a minimum, it should
  be ex:instructions.

  Maybe, to avoid ambiguity, the plan could be a new methodology to
  generate data.

- appendix A: prov-n snippets:  _ should be -

- type is missing for some literals "prov:Person" %% xsd:QName

- "prov:dataToCompose" -> "ex:dataToCompose"

- "prov:regionsToAggregteBy" -> "ex:regionsToAggregATEBY"

On 04/01/2012 07:35 PM, Miles, Simon wrote:

The primer is ready for review by the WG, ahead of the next release.


Dr Simon Miles
Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166

Electronically querying for the provenance of entities:

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email:<>
United Kingdom           

Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2012 09:57:50 UTC