Re: PROV-ISSUE-331 (review-dm-wd5): issue to collect feedback on prov-dm wd5 [prov-dm]

DM editors,


On Apr 10, 2012, at 6:26 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:

> DM editors,
> 
> Please find here:
> 
> * Response to your specific questions, then 
> * Comments that follow the document.
> 
> Regards,
> Tim
> 
> ===================
> 
> Editor's questions:
>  Can the document be released as a next public working draft? If no, what are the blocking issues?
> Yes-ish. Releasing the draft with the current state of specializationOf concerns me. I would be willing to let the draft go public, but would much prefer another pass here.


If the definition of specialization changes to the following, I can change my response to a resounding "YES, RELEASE !".
4.4.1 Specialization

"An entity is a specialization of another if they describe some common thing but the former is a more constrained entity than the latter. The common thing does not need to be identified."

-Tim





> 
> Is the structure of the document approved?
> Yes. It flows naturally.
> Can the short name of the document be confirmed (in particular, for prov-n, prov-dm-constraints, since request needs to be sent for publication)?
> yes.
> 
> 
> 
> If a reviewer raised some issues (closed pending review), can they be closed?
> If the traditional request mechanism is used and provides the raiser one more check, yes. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can all concept definitions be confirmed? Specifically,
> consider ISSUE-337 on agents
> (yes) The treatment of agent is fine. The fact that it is an entity seems unnatural, given that it is one of the principal concepts it should not be stuck under Entity. One can make an agent an entity at any time, so we are not losing anything by keeping Agent, Entity, and Activity at the top level.
> 
> consider ISSUE-223 on entities
> (yes) "An entity is a thing one wants to provide provenance for. For the purpose of this specification, things can be physical, digital, conceptual, or otherwise; things may be real or imaginary." is fine. In particular "wants to provide provenance for" is important. The breadth of entity is conveyed by the end of the definition. Entities contrast with Activities, which is another important aspect.
> 
> 
> NO, specializationOf needs help. It is NOT owl:sameAs, but seems to always drift back to something TOO close to it. "Things and Refer" should not appear in the definition. I wish the WG would stop fighting over competing detailed definitions and leave it in its abstract form for general use (and extension).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ==========================
> <> dcterms:subject <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-dm-20120402/prov-dm.html> .
> 
> General comments:
> 
> 1)
> "actities" typo
> 
> 
> 2)
> The summary "component 4: properties to link entities that refer to a same thing;" seems misleading.
> (Though, with the flurry of recent discussions on this, it's not clear what a better summary is)
> 
> 3)
> odd phrasing: "which are allows users"
> 
> 4)
> typo: "completion of the the act of producing"
> 
> 5)
> Generation defintiion seems odd when split over two sentences:
> "This entity becomes available for usage after this generation. This entity did not exist before generation."
> ->
> "This entity did not exist before generation and becomes available for usage after this generation."
> 
> 6)
> The following could benefit from a rephrasing:
> "A Web site and service selling books on the Web and the company hosting them are software agents and organizations, respectively."
> 
> 7)
> Section 2.4 seems to be asymmetric.
> Attribution has one definition and example. (thus does not get as much or adequate attention compared to association)
> Association has two leading paragraphs (which at first reading seem like they should be supporting "attribution" and not introducing the subsequent "attribution")
> 
> 8)
> Should tables and figures be numbered?
> "Table (Mapping of Provenance concepts to types and relations in PROV-DM)"
> 
> 9)
> The following seems to be out of place, or does not link to the fulfillment of its promise:
> "When examining PROV-DM in details, some relations, while involving two primary elements, are shown to be nary."
> * Is it "in detail"?
> * suggest to add link to where these "detail" and "nary" are discussed later in the document.
> 
> 10)
> It seems asymmetric that "wasInformedBy" is not part of the diagram
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-dm-20120402/prov-dm.html#
> The diagram answers how entities can relate to entities, and agents to agents, but activities seem less primary without having their own intra-relation.
> (This, noting that the diagram "is not intended to be complete.")
> Communication occurs throughout the publication example, so it could be added.
> 
> 
> 11)
> The final paragraph in section 2.5 tries to tie things together, but it does not do so clearly.
> """
> Figure overview-types-and-relations is not intended to be complete. It only illustrates types and relations from Section starting-points and exploited in the example discussed in the next section. They will then be explained in detail in Section data-model-components. The third column of Table (Mapping of Provenance concepts to types and relations in PROV-DM) lists names that are part of a textual notation to write instances of the PROV-DM data model. This notation, referred to as the PROV-N notation, is outlined in the next section.
> """
> * for the intended purpose, "Section starting-points" is _this_ section (and not some other that needs to be hunted down).
> * "example discussed in the next section" provides a relative reference that could be more informative. Perhaps "following section" can help.
> * "They will then be explained" -> "The starting points will be explained"
> * Not having numbers on the sections makes it difficult to infer the organization.
> * The point about the third column in the table means nothing to me. Why do I care? Is this useful in PROV-N land? It's not mentioned explicitly until the following sentence (which is where it is re-introduced unnecessarily).
> 
> 
> 12)
> Expressions are not identified, but the following could be interpreted as such:
> "Most expressions have an identifier which always occur in first position"
> * suggest to rephrase so that the expression mentions (not has) an identifier.
> 
>  
> 13)
> Not sure semicolon is appropriate here:
> "; we then provide attribution"
> 
> 
> 14)
> "must also preceded by" missing a "be"?
> 
> 15)
> Odd phrasing: "(some of which locating archived email messages"
> 
> 16)
> suggest removing "agent" from "were published by the WWW Consortium agent"
> -- it sounds like some software did it.
> 
> 
> 17)
> Collective confusion in example
> * What is prefix "ar2" and "ar3" and "ar1"?
> * All of the numbers in the names make it hard to keep track of things (e.g. ar1:0004?)
> * 404: "Full details of the provenance record can be found here." -> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-dm-20120402/examples/w3c-publication1.pn
> * more unrecognizable prefixes: pr:RecsWD
> * "it happens that all entities were already Web resources, with readily available URIs, which we used" - this seems only to be true for the two reports and nothing else.
> * 404: "Full details of the provenance record can be found here" -> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-dm-20120402/examples/w3c-publication3.pn
> 
> 18)
> This phrase seems to have the opposite affect of its intent:
> "its details differ from the author's perspective" 
> * Perhaps "its details differ according to the asserting author"
> 
> 19)
> Perhaps switch the two accounts in the example section. The second one is much smaller (and actually happens first).
> This could help readability.
> 
> 20)
> Before section 4, the distinction between concepts and types/relations was made (to the extend of showing their mapping).
> Yet section 4 (titled types and relations) says "PROV-DM concepts are structured according to six components that are introduced in this section"
> * suggest to replace "concepts" with types and relations.
> * suggest to be precise about the relation between "concepts" and "types and relations" and to use then consistently.
> 
> 
> 21)
> Beginning of section 4:
> "operations related to collections."
> * suggest to rephrase this with examples like in component 1; mentioning insertion and removal.
> 
> 
> 22)
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-dm-20120402/prov-dm.html#prov-dm-concepts-and-relations
> * suggest adding a textual indicator for the component (to readability, and to avoid potential accessibility issues for visually impaired).
> * Also, the color code does not exist on the same page (one must scroll up to see it).
> 
> 23)
> Second column for Collection seems odd in 
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-dm-20120402/prov-dm.html#prov-dm-concepts-and-relations
> 
> 24)
> "The attributes ex:version is" -> "The attribute ex:version is"
> 
> 
> 25)
> Why is:
> """
>   wasGeneratedBy(e1,a1, 2001-10-26T21:32:52, [ex:port="p1"])
>   wasGeneratedBy(e2,a1, 2001-10-26T10:00:00, [ex:port="p2"])
> """
> not:
>   wasGeneratedBy(-,e1,a1, 2001-10-26T21:32:52, [ex:port="p1"])
>   wasGeneratedBy(-,e2,a1, 2001-10-26T10:00:00, [ex:port="p2"])
> Is there an exception to the "- rule"?
> 
> 26)
> What started in this phrase: "Any usage or generation involving an activity follows its start."
> * suggest rephrasing to make it clear that the activity is the thing starting.
> * perhaps "Any usage or generation by an activity must follow the activity's start"
> * similar comment for definition of End
> 
> 27)
> For Start's example:
> "if the activity happens to consume the message content" could safely be removed for clarity. (the "regarded as an input" covers it more clearly)
> 
> 28)
> Should  "wasAttributedTo(ex:foot_race,ex:DarthVader)" be "wasAttributedTo(ex:bang,ex:DarthVader)" ?
> 
> 29)
> Regarding: "Consider two long running services, which we represent by activities s1 and s2."
> It seems odd that services are considered activities. Should they not be agents that perform more granular activities?
> * perhaps this example could be replaced to avoid yet another computer example: the "fine paying; check writing; mailing" activity was informed by the "traffic stop" activity. The implicit entity is a traffic ticket that had a notice of fine, amount, and payment mailing address.
> 
> 
> 30)
> Start by Activity continues to be an outlier in this model. It's just a simple case of communication. 
> Recommend to drop start by activity.
> https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/340
> 
> 
> 31)
> Is http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-dm-20120402/prov-dm.html#figure-component2
> legitimate UML that can be interpreted by anybody outside of DM? Why isn't wasAssociatedWith class relating to Activity and Agent (like an ERD would do)?
> 
> 
> 32)
> "are responsible in some way for the activity to take place"
> -> "are responsible in some way for the activity that took take place"
> 
> 
> 33)
> The "length > 1" connotation here concerns me:
> "id: an optional identifier for the responsibility chain;"
> It seems to suggest that multiple one-step responsibilities should point to their aggregation, which I don't believe is the case.
> * suggest to rephrase to "responsibility link [between subordinate and responsible]"
> 
> 
> 
> 34)
> suggest "attribute-value pairs that describe the modalities of this relation." 
> -> "attribute-value pairs that describe the modalities of this responsibility link." 
> 
> 35)
> "and a funder agents" -> "and a funder agent"
> "has an contractual agreement" -> "has a contractual agreement"
> 
> 36)
> should responsibility example include:
> wasAssociatedWith(a,ag3) ?
> 
> 
> 
> 37)
> section 4.3:
> "and subtypes of derivations" -> "subtypes of derivations"
> 
> 
> 
> 36)
> Similar to previous, is the binary augmentation shown in
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-dm-20120402/prov-dm.html#figure-component3
> a convention known by anybody? It is very difficult to interpret.
> 
> 
> 37) 4.3.1
> The "build up" discussed for adding details about derivation is very nice.
> 
> 
> 38)
> It is difficult to follow 
> wasDerivedFrom(e2, e1, a, g2, u1)
> wasGeneratedBy(g2, e2, a, -)
> used(u1, a, e1, -)
> 
> and the paragraph. Perhaps a simple diagram would help follow. (but then this would be inconsistent with other definitions…)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 39)
> 4.3.2
> "responsibility: an optional  identifier (ag) for the agent who approved the newer entity as a variant of the older;"
> ^^^ this seems more appropriately modeled as an account, not stuck as part of the underlying model.
> Revision should "just be", and if one wants to know who says "it just is", we should use accounts to answer.
> 
> The same experience that we used to remove "agent asserting an account" from "account" should be reapplied to this parameter as well.
> https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/341
> 
> 
> 
> 40)
> Glad to see the "all" in "A quotation is the repeat of (some or all of) an entity"
> 
> 
> 
> 41)  
> The phrases:
> "Quotation is a particular case of  derivation in which"
> and
> "An original source relation is a particular case of derivation that"
>  are very instructive.
> 
> but this is not done for Revision.
> * recommend to add this kind of phrase to revision section.
> 
> 
> 42) (Thanks for all the fish…)
> "Let us consider the current section dm:term-original-source," seems to describe the concrete form, when in fact you're talking about the notions described by the section.
> * suggest to rephrase to something like "Let us consider the concept described in the current section"
> 
> 
> 43)
> "and the Google page go:credit-where-credit-is-due.html, where the notion was originally described."
> suggest to += "(to the knowledge of the authors)"
> 
> 
> 44)
> should "Derivation and association are particular cases of  traceability."
> be "Derivation and _attribution_ are particular cases of  traceability." ?
> 
> 
> 45)
> "w3:Consortium or to pr:rec-advance." -" w3:Consortium _and_ to pr:rec-advance."
> 
> 
> 46)
> "Wherever two people describe the provenance of a same thing, 
> one cannot expect them to coordinate and agree on the identifiers to use to denote that thing."
> * we are nose diving back to owl:sameAs with this ^^
> * The example is reasonable (date-specific URI versus non)
> 
> 
> 47)
> "To allow for identifiers to be chosen freely and independently by each user, the PROV data model introduces relations that allow entities to be linked together. The following two relations are introduced for expressing specialized or alternate entities."
> ^^ this does not convey the "levels of detail" aspect well enough - it emphasizes too much on the "choose your own URI" wild west of the web.
> 
> 
> 48)
> References and Things should not be involved in defining specialization. We've just pushed the "Thing vs. Entity" argument into specialization.
> "An entity is a specialization
>  of another if they refer to some common thing but the former is a more 
> constrained entity than the latter. The common thing do not need to be 
> identified. "
> 
> 
> 49)
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-dm-20120402/prov-dm.html#figure-component5
> has old naming "derivation-by-removal" which was renamed to simpler "removal"
> (or, if it's not "old", I recommend renaming it)
> Though, I may just be confused on this (qualified vs. unqualified). Perhaps disregard this comment.
> 
> 
> 
> 50)
> "and is a generic indexing mechanisms" -> "and is a generic indexing mechanism"
> 
> 
> 
> 51)
> "and more (the specification of such specialized structures in terms of key-value pairs is out of the scope of this document)"
> -> "and more. The specification of such specialized structures in terms of key-value pairs is out of the scope of this document."
> 
> 
> 52)
> suggest mentioning the word "replacement" in the sentence:
> "Insertion provides an "update semantics" for the keys that are already 
> present in the collection, as illustrated by the following example. "
> 
> 
> 53)
> "This is reflected in the constraints listed in Part II." seems to warrant a link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 54)
> first example in annotations
> 
> "The note's identifier and attributes are declared in a separate namespace denoted by prefix ex2."
> ^^^ This seems to be insinuating some best practice without explaining why they are in different namespaces. It can lead to questions that each requires a can of worms.
> The namespace of the attributes should NOT be in the same namespace as the instance.
> 
> 
> 
> 55)
> second example in annotations
> ex3:n2 should NOT be in same namespace as ex3:reputation
> 
> 
> 56)
> I'll point out _again_ that Notes are a bad way to model derivations of provenance; that is what accounts are for. If you want to use this shortcut in your design - fine. But don't advocate the impoverished design in the recommendation itself -- snuck in via an example.
> 
> 
> 
> 57)
> "The interpretation of any attribute declared in another namespace is out of scope."
> ^^ does this refer to attributes mentioned in this document? 
> 
> 
> 
> 58)
> please add links to the appropriate sections for the contexts mentioned in:
> 
> "The attribute prov:role denotes the function of an entity with respect to an activity, in the context of a usage, generation, association, start, and end"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 59)
> Please add links to the appropriate sections for the attributes in:
> "The PROV-DM namespace declares a set of reserved attributes catering for extensibility: type, role, location."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 60)
> Please explicitly cite the parts in:
> "must preserve the semantics specified in the PROV-DM documents (part 1 to 3)."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 61)
> This is inaccurate from the AWWW perspective:
> "One needs to ensure that provenance descriptions for the latter document remain valid as denoted resources change."
> What may change is the representation returned when the resource's denotation (i.e., URI) is requested.
> This, in turn, may mislead consumers to a referent distinct from that originally intended by the author of the denotation.
> The resource didn't change, one's interpretation of what was written changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 62) typo: "mechanism for blundling up provenance"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 63)
> awkward wording: "as well as constraint that structurally well-formed descriptions are expected to satisfy."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 29, 2012, at 9:36 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> 
>> PROV-ISSUE-331 (review-dm-wd5): issue to collect feedback on prov-dm wd5 [prov-dm]
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/331
>> 
>> Raised by: Luc Moreau
>> On product: prov-dm
>> 
>> When sending feedback, please send it under this issue or individual new issues.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>