- From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 17:43:25 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi, I just realized I only replied privately to Simon. Anyways, my misunderstanding, the prov-n version is there behind the hide/show buttons. never mind, comment withdrawn :-) -Paolo On 7/4/12 4:28 PM, Miles, Simon wrote: > Hi Paolo, > > Thanks, but to be clear, the PROV-N is not omitted from the primer, it is integrated into the main text. There are buttons to select whether you want your examples in Turtle or PROV-N or both, a la the OWL primer, as was agreed by the WG. I agree that the PROV-N is more appropriate than Turtle for some people, as Curt has raised before, and that is why it is in the main body of the text, not just an appendix. I know that the default view of the examples (before any buttons are clicked) is Turtle, and the WG could comment on whether that is appropriate - I did it that way just because PROV-O seems to have higher prominence for the WG than PROV-N, as reflected in the order we suggest documents are read. > > Am I misunderstanding your comment? > > thanks, > Simon > > Dr Simon Miles > Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics > Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK > +44 (0)20 7848 1166 > > Transparent Provenance Derivation for User Decisions: > http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1400/ > ________________________________________ > From: Paolo Missier [Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk] > Sent: 04 July 2012 15:54 > To: public-prov-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-410 (prov-primer-review): Feedback on Primer document [Primer] > > Hi Simon, Yolanda > > the primer reads well, as we knew already. > I have one more general comment and then specific notes, below. > > General comment: I know there was a group decision to omit the PROV-N version of the examples. I still believe it was not a good > idea. None of the people I can send this primer to are interested in the turtle syntax, in fact some won't even be able to parse it. > I understand it is the preferred format, but can someone remind me why PROV-N was omitted altogether? > Either way: I also don't understand why I am listed as author/contributor, as that was my only contribution. > > specific comments follow. I hope they help > > Regards, > -Paolo > > 2.3 > Activities /may/ generate ...? > Activities /may/ also use...? > > should invalidation also be mentioned in this context? > > 2.4 > "the agent must be declared explicitly both as an agent and as an entity." > term "declared" may be open to interpretations. Consider: > the agent can be viewed both as an agent and as an entity. > > 2.5 > "Roles are application specific, so PROV does not define any particular roles." > > this must be puzzling: if this is the case, why mention roles at all in this document? > need to somehow explain that a compliant implementation is expected to recognize that there is a recognized concept of role, > although it may not understand its specific values. > > 2.9 > > these examples may be confusing: > > The same entity can evolve over time into different versions, e.g. a document that is repeatedly updated and has subsequent releases > over time. > The same entity can be copied or replicated, e.g. a document may be copied to several directories. > > because very similar scenarios were referred to as "revision" and "derivation" in 2.8 just above > > sec 3 > one may wonder whether stating that individuals be instances of specific classes is redundant when they are used as subjects of > properties (i.e., in some cases where the domain of the properties is set, which is the case in PROV-O, but this is never stated). > > > 3.4 and subsequent examples > > possibly point out that the RDF statements in these examples may include non-provenance statements, i.e., ex:chartgen foaf:name ... > so in general one can mix provenance and non-provenance aspects of entities and agents. > > > 3.10 title: data -> records ? > > > typo: > > sec 1 how to how > > On 6/14/12 4:24 PM, 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 >> >> >> > > -- > ----------- ~oo~ -------------- > Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org > School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, UK > http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier -- ----------- ~oo~ -------------- Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, UK http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2012 16:43:49 UTC