Re: PROV-DM Simplication Reviewer Feedback...

Tracker, this is now ISSUE-274

On 23/02/2012 09:32, Eric Stephan wrote:
> My apologies for being so late on providing reviewer feedback.
>
> Overall I enjoyed the PROV-DM document, I felt that the authors have
> done an incredible job helping readers easily relate concepts in the
> data model.  Here are my comments and suggestions.
>
> Eric
>
> ~~~
>
> Introduction
>
> I agreed with the discussion thread on changes to the introduction
> that introduced the purpose of the data model to describe provenance
> in natural language.
>
> Section 2.3 – I have mixed feelings about bringing out these concepts,
> they don’t tie into the example and collections isn’t mentioned again
> until section 5.8.  While they are important perhaps could this
> section be left out of section 2?
>
> Section 3 Example
>
> Prior to the auditor example could an ultra simple example debuting an
> agent, process and entity something like “w3:Consortium publishes a
> technical report”?
>
> I’m wondering if the detailed auditor provenance example could be
> introduced first in a human readable story format prior to the
> bulleted list that highlights the specific provenance related
> concepts.
>
> In the example  use of the somewhat cryptic working draft names
> “tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215” “tr:WD-prov-dm-20111018”  is a bit difficult
> to following because I found myself mentally parsing the document
> names to keep track of the different documents.   While this might be
> less realistic something like model-rev1.html, model-rev2.html might
> illustrate the same ideas.
>
> I am wondering if it might be more intuitive if the provenance graphic
> illustration preceeded the PROV-ASN notation.  It provides a graphic
> that a person can study as they study the PROV-DM assertions in
> PROV-ASN notation.
>
> The graphic illustration seems to capture all the examples of
> provenance from the bulleted list while the PROV-DM assertions in
> PROV-ASN seem to be either incomplete (there isn’t a one to one
> correspondence to follow from the example to the PROV-DM assertions.
>
> 3.2  Great job bringing in the concept of viewing other perspectives
> on the same example.
>
> 4.2  Activity names in the table need updating.
>
> 4.3.3.5  prov:location – Could we change the wording slightly to say
> that Location is loosely based on an ISO 19112 but can also refer to
> non-geographic places such as a directory or row/column?  The specific
> definition from ISO19112 is location:
> identifiable geographic place  EXAMPLE “Eiffel Tower”, “Madrid”, “California””
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 05:27:07 UTC