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

On Jul 4, 2012, at 11:28 AM, 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

+1 to a slight bias towards prov-o, since RDF is a prominent W3C representation and PROV-N is only our WG's means to discuss it in a slightly more abstract way (though, it's a "sibling" of prov-o).

Perhaps the PROV-N examples could be shown be default, and options to "hide all {RDF,PROV-N}" could be an option next to each "Turtle Example' title?

It is hard to notice that PROV-N examples are an view option.

Regards,
Tim



> - 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
>

Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2012 20:56:23 UTC