RE: PROV-ISSUE-410 (prov-primer-review): Feedback on Primer document [Primer]

Comments on primer version at link Simon sent here:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/Primer.html
(I note that the date is continuously updating on this page).

Review questions:

- Is it intuitive, readable, and an appropriate introduction to the
other documents?

Yes - clear and well structured.

- Do you judge it to be comprehensible to the range of communities that
might use PROV?

Yes.

- Is the new way of presenting examples, with choice of format, helpful?

Yes (but there is sometimes a choice on how to map to RDF).

- Are the examples up to date with regard to PROV-O and PROV-N?

As far as I can tell.  
Some specific comments below - mostly minor - only (1) seems important:

(1) - We encounter the generation of ex:chart1 at two different levels
of granularity.  At the end of Section 3.10, these occur together on the
same graph, with ex:chart1 generated by both ex:compile and
ex:illustrate. There were some discussions about this situation
previously on the mailing list:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012May/0019.ht
ml
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012May/0285.html
It definitely breaks the unique-generation constraint of
PROV-constraints, (but it seems excused if you call it scruffy?), and
makes the diagram confusing. 

(2) - Figure (unnamed) at start of section 2 used to match the one in
PROV-DM, but the one in PROV-DM now includes "WasInformedBy" as core
concept.

(3) - I think readers might wonder why a wasRevisionOf relation is used
between ex:dataset2 and ex:dataset1, whereas an alternateOf relation is
used between ex:articleV2 and ex:articleV1.  It seems that both
relations are applicable in both cases, and according to
PROV-constraints wasRevisionOf implies alternateOf (but I think the
appropriate subproperty relationship is not in PROV-O?).  This choice
could be clarified in the example.
 
(4) - The primer illustrates generation time using a
prov:qualifiedGeneration and prov:atTime property.  It doesn't mention
we can state generation time of entity directly using
prov:generatedAtTime property.  It seems worth mentioning that.

(5) - [question provoked by reading primer, rather than criticism of
primer] There is an example in the primer which qualifies 'used' with a
role.  In PROV-DM, there is an example of using a user-defined
ex:parameter attribute for the same purpose.  A third way to do the same
thing, which wouldn't necessitate qualified involvements in the RDF
would be to use subproperties of prov:used.  Are we allowed to express
that in PROV-N using prov:type attribute?  I'm guessing we can't give
subproperty of prov:used, but we could express subclass of prov:Usage?

(6) - The running example is nearly the same as the one in the PROV-O
documentation, but doesn't quite align.  It might be worth making them
compatible.

(7) - Section 3.6, PROV-N and turtle examples show wasRevisionOf
relation between ex:chart2 and ex:chart1, but the diagrams show relation
between ex:dataset2 and ex:dataset1.

(8) - Section 3.9 Arguments reversed in PROV-N rendition of alternateOf
(which admittedly doesn't matter semantically).

(9) - References section - Is the reference to PROV-DM correct, as it
seems to pre-date the separation of PROV-N into a different document?


Stephen Cresswell


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker
> [mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org]
> Sent: 14 June 2012 16:25
> To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: PROV-ISSUE-410 (prov-primer-review): Feedback on Primer
document
> [Primer]
> 
> PROV-ISSUE-410 (prov-primer-review): Feedback on Primer document
[Primer]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/410
> 
> Raised by: Simon Miles
> On product: Primer
> 
> This is the issue to collect feedback on the primer document.
> 
> Document to review is available from:
> 
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/Primer.html
> 
> Questions:
>  - Is it intuitive, readable, and an appropriate introduction to the
other
> documents?
>  - Do you judge it to be comprehensible to the range of communities
that
> might use PROV?
>  - Is the new way of presenting examples, with choice of format,
helpful?
>  - Are the examples up to date with regard to PROV-O and PROV-N?
> 
> Thanks,
> Simon
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
________________________________________________________________________
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
> service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
> anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
> http://www.star.net.uk
>
________________________________________________________________________

***********************************************************************************************
This email, including any attachment, is confidential and may be legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please inform the sender immediately by reply and delete all copies from your system. Do not retain, copy, disclose, distribute or otherwise use any of its contents.  

Whilst we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure that this email has been swept for computer viruses, we cannot guarantee that this email does not contain such material and we therefore advise you to carry out your own virus checks. We do not accept liability for any damage or losses sustained as a result of such material.

Please note that incoming and outgoing email communications passing through our IT systems may be monitored and/or intercepted by us solely to determine whether the content is business related and compliant with company standards.
***********************************************************************************************

The Stationery Office Limited is registered in England No. 3049649 at 10 Eastbourne Terrace, London, W2 6LG

Received on Sunday, 1 July 2012 20:33:21 UTC