Re: {Disarmed} Feedback about DM draft 4

Tracker, this is now ISSUE-274

On 24/02/2012 12:00, Daniel Garijo wrote:
> Hi all,
> here are my comments after reading part 1:
>
> Objectives:
>
>     * decide whether the new documents are inline with the
>       simplification objective recommend whether they become the new
>       editor's draft.
>
>           ---> YES, it is much more simple and easy to read now. I 
> would take it as the new editor's draft.
>
>     *    Decide whether ISSUE-145, ISSUE-183, ISSUE-215, ISSUE-225 and
>       ISSUE-234 (all relating to identifiers) can be closed
>
>           ---> 145: No accounts anymore, just bundles (or 
> AccountEntity), so it could be closed.
>           ---> 215: It has to do with the distinction between records, 
> accounts and mitning ids. Since we don't have records and accounts, 
> then the issue could be closed.
>           ---> 225: All objects in the universe of discourse have been 
> clarified. Can be closed.
>           ---> 234: The term "record" has been dropped. Therefore, 
> this can be closed.
>
> ***Comments from 
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/towards-wd4.html***
>
> - Button "Hide ASN" does actually do anything?
>
> 2.3
> - AccountEntity? I thought it was Bundle, but ok.
>
> -Three types of agents are recognized by PROV-DM because they are 
> commonly encountered in applications making data and documents 
> available on the Web: persons, software agents, and organizations.--> 
> Wasn't software supposed to be system/computingSystem?
>
> 2.5: there are arrows missing: Activity wasStartedBy Activity. Entity: 
> alternateOf, specializationOf
>
> 3.1: It would be helpful to see the properties labelled in the figure.
>
> 3.2: Here I would suggest to simplify the figure (leave just 2 authors 
> (as in the example), or the editors), and label the edges as well.
>
> 3.3: Ah finally a reference to metadata provenance :) This is what Kai 
> and some of the DC community were asking for.
>
> 4.1.2: "In contrast, an activity is something that happens, unfolds or 
> develops through time, but is typically not identifiable by the 
> characteristics it exhibits at any point during its duration". What 
> about the activity's ID. Why isn't that enough to characterize the 
> activity enough to become an entity or an agent?
>
> 4.2: wasStartedBy between activities is missing in the table. In fact 
> I haven't seen wasStartedBy between activities in the doc. It 
> certainly was an overloaded property in the WD4. Has it been removed?
>
> 4.2.1.2:There is a note that refers to Usage record's id. It should be 
> just usage.
>
> *MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "4.2.3.2" 
> claiming to be* 4.2.3.2 <http://4.2.3.2>: I got the feeling from 
> discussions on the mailing list that we were going to reduce one of 
> the derivation types (Imprecise-1 derivation). Am I wrong?
>
> *MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "4.3.3.5" 
> claiming to be* 4.3.3.5 <http://4.3.3.5>: I don't understand how a 
> path in a computer or a row and a column are a geographic place.
>
> 5.5: Example missing
>
> 5.7: Example missing.
>
> 5.8: If collections are just a kind of entity and they have their 
> custom relationships (afterInsertion, afterRemoval), would it make 
> sense to separate them from the core? (In a profile, best practice or 
> example of extensibility)
>
> *********
> - One question that came into my mind when reading the model: How 
> would I model a usage that lasted for 20 min? (Right now we only have 
> the beggining of the usage). Example: My activity uses 2 files. The 
> first one is parsed for 20 mins and the other one instantly, and I 
> want to model this with DM. Unless I create 2 activities (which is not 
> what happened) I don't see how.
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel