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

Hi Yolanda and Simon,

The primer is a very pleasant read, the right length, the right contents.
A few comments.  The document can be released as WD after the requested
changes have been incorporated.

For the questions.

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

+1

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

I suppose so

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

yes, I like it. Thanks.

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

Some changes suggested below.



Section 1.

- Prov is a proposed specification to REPRESENT provenance --> to express
- we can perceive how to how use it ???
- Final report of the W3C provenance Incubator grop --> add as an 
informative
   reference in the bibliography.

section 2.
- PROV-DM data model document -> PROV data model
- provides definitions and constraints --> for constraints, cite 
prov-constraints.
- use latest UML diagram from prov-dm
- "This also affects the domain and range of the relations in PROV": 
what do you mean?

section 2.3:
- title should be "USAGE and geneation". Replace use by  usage everywhere.
-I suggest adding:
"Likewise, usage does not always occur at the beginning of an activity."

section 2.5
- whether how ???

section 2.9
- "The following are examples illustrate this idea"  -> illustrating

section 3:
- "These samples use the namespace prefix prov DENOTES terms ..." ->  
denoting?
- [PROV-N] productions -> [PROV-N] expressions

section 3.1:
- "Any entity may have attributes not specific to provenance" -> what do 
you mean?
   they are all fixed attributes. Or do you mean attributes that are not 
pre-defined
   by PROV?

Section 3.3:
- When printed, many pictures are truncated. Make their width 95% of the 
page width.
- You may want to add that all edges point in a same direction "towards 
the past"

Section 3.4 and elsewhere:
- prov:type="prov:Person"  -> prov:type='prov:Person'
- prov:type="prov:Organization"  -> prov:type='prov:Organization'
- indentation of prov-n examples is not the clearest. Can all attributes 
be indented in
   the same way?
- prov:role="ex:dataToCompose"  -> prov:role='ex:dataToCompose'
    all qualified names literals should appear in single quotes


Section 3.6:
- wasRevisionOf(ex:dataSet2,ex:dataSet1) ->
   wasDerivedFrom(ex:dataSet2,ex:dataSet1, [prov:type='prov:Revision'])
   (twice)

Section 3.7
- prov-n example misses
   wasGeneratedBy(ex:dataSet2, ex:connect,-)


section 3.9:
- stating that it QUOTED from the article: not the clearest

- wasQuotedFrom(ex:blogEntry, ex:article) ->
   wasDerivedFrom(ex:blogEntry, ex:article, [prov:type='prov:Quotation']) ->

- turtle example misses:
  ex:articleV1 a prov:Entity

section 3.10
- we visualize the whoe example as a single BUNDLE ... did you really 
mean bundle?

- Given the importance of provenance of provenance, could you indeed 
complete
  the example by creating a bundle and giving its provenance.  That's 
maybe the only
   thing missing in the primer.



On 14/06/12 16:24, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2012 08:42:36 UTC