Re: PROV-ISSUE-408 (prov-n-review-for-LC): feedback on PROV-N document (for last call release) [prov-n]

Hi,

Generally, the document reads well and is quite concise which I think is
good.
Below are few comments.

- The notion of Topbundle is put forward in few places as the top level non
terminal expression. I am not sure if that serves a purpose, specially that
a top level bundle may, I imagine, be references by other non terminal
expressions, e.g., wasAttributedTo.

- For the reader to understand Example 2, we may need to add a few words to
say what a, g2 and u1 represent, which can be done in one sentence I think.
For example, "where a is the activity the used e1 to generate e2. u1 and g2
represents the usage and generation, respectively."

- In Section 2.5: "cooments" -> "comments"

- In Section, 3.1.2, I suspect that "time" is non terminal, and therefore,
the reader may expect it to be broken down into terminals terms. I know
this is beyond the scope of PROV-DM, but it would be good to add a sentence
saying that.

- There are two terms that are used to define identfiers: "Identifier" and
"OptionalIdentifier". Why not use "Identifier" and when it is optional use
"(Identifier)?" as specified in Section 2.2?

- In section 3.1.4, it is said that "Even though the production
usageExpression allows for expressions used(a2, -, -) and used(-; e2, -,
-), these expressions are not valid in PROV-N, since at least one of id,
entity, time, and attributes must be present." However, according to the
definition of Usage in [12], the activity identifier is not optional.

- Section 3.2.1, defines derivation as:
 [17]     derivationExpression    ::=     "wasDerivedFrom" "("
optionalIdentifier eIdentifier "," eIdentifier ( "," aIdentifierOrMarker
"," gIdentifierOrMarker "," uIdentifierOrMarker )?
optionalAttributeValuePairs ")"

 I may be wrong, but the ( "," aIdentifierOrMarker "," gIdentifierOrMarker
"," uIdentifierOrMarker )?  means that either all of the terms activity,
generation and usage are present or none of them. In other words, the above
definition may need to be altered to something like:

derivationExpression    ::=     "wasDerivedFrom" "(" optionalIdentifier
eIdentifier "," eIdentifier ( "," aIdentifierOrMarker)?  (","
gIdentifierOrMarker ")? (," uIdentifierOrMarker )?
optionalAttributeValuePairs ")"

- Looking at the definition of Revision, Quotation and Primary source, I am
wondering if it would make sense to say something about the kind of
derivation in the derivationExpression, to state that it may contain an
additional optional element that specifies the kind of derivation.

Khalid

On 14 June 2012 12:07, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <
sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:

> PROV-ISSUE-408 (prov-n-review-for-LC): feedback on PROV-N document (for
> last call release) [prov-n]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/408
>
> Raised by: Luc Moreau
> On product: prov-n
>
>
> This is the issue to collect feedback on prov-n document.
>
> Document to review is available from:
>
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-n-20120614/prov-n.html
>
> Question for reviewers:
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.06.14
>
> Cheers,
> Luc
>
>
>
>