Re: PROV-ISSUE-437 (prov-dm-post-f2f3-review): Final review before last call vote [prov-dm]

Hi,
Kudos to both the editors, the current draft is very readable and
well-structured!

>>Question for reviewers: Can the document be published as Last Call
working draft?
Yes.

Thanks.

Best,
Satya

Detailed review comments are as follows:
==============
Section 2.1.1
1. Rewrite sentence "Just as entities cover a broad range of notions,
activities can cover a broad range of notions: information processing
activities may for example move, copy, or duplicate digital entities;
physical activities can include driving a car from Boston to Cambridge."
>>
"Just as entities cover a broad range of notions, activities can cover a
broad range of notions: information processing activities and physical
activities."

As Example 2 already describes the information processing activity and
driving of car from Boston to Cambridge.

2. Example 5 is not clear - is this in context of UK news - phone tapping
issue (it is very country specific)

Section 5.1.6
1. Start: By defining all the attributes except Activity (being started) as
optional leads to potentially confusing scenarios. If only the "time"
attribute is used, e.g. wasStartedBy(a1, -, -, 2011-11-16T16:05:00), then
instead of wasStartedBy, wasStartedAt (or some similar construct) needs to
be used. Hence, suggest that  "trigger" should not be optional since if the
trigger is not known then it is more appropriate for the user or
application to define/use a more relevant construct wasStartedAt (for
time), wasInformedBy (if "starter" activity is known).

Section 5.1.7
1. Similar to above comment about wasStartedBy - "trigger" should not be
optional. If the user/application does not have information about the
trigger then the wasEndedBy construct should not be used and alternatively
wasEndedAt, wasInformedBy should be used.

Section 5.1.8
The two example assertions in Example 27 are also confusing:
wasGeneratedBy  (ex:bbcNews2012-04-03, -, 2012-04-03T00:00:01) should be
wasGeneratedAt if the activity that generated it is not known. Since the
entity "bbcNews2012-04-03" was clearly not generated by time
"2012-04-03T00:00:01"

wasInvalidatedBy(ex:bbcNews2012-04-03, -, 2012-04-03T23:59:59) should be
wasInvalidatedAt

In example 28:
wasInvalidatedBy(buy_one_beer_get_one_free_offer_during_happy_hour,
-,2012-03-10T18:00:00) should be wasInvalidatedAt

Section 5.3.5
1. The document should give a clear/concrete example of the use of
Influence (in querying?). Since the document recommends use of specific
"sub-types" of influence, the motivation or use of Influence is not clear
in current description.

Section 5.4.1
1. The requirement for defining "Bundle Constructor" is not clear - is it
similar to a class constructor used in object oriented programming? The
relevance of such a construct in DM is not clear.

Section 5.4.2
1. Suggest that in example 39, the assertion wasGeneratedBy(ex:report2, -,
2012-05-25T11:00:01) should either have an "activity" or renamed to
wasGeneratedAt

Section 5.5.1
1. The use of the statement "In particular, the lifetime of the entity
being specialized contains that of any specialization." is not clear? Is it
used in any constraint?

2. Suggest using an alternate example for specialization, since "bbc:news/"
will be a folder and "ex:bbcNews2012-03-23" will be a file within that
folder (as web directories are structured)?
Alternative example:
specializationOf(ex:W3CLastCallWorkingDraft, ex:W3CWorkingDraft)

Section 5.5.2
1. It is a bit difficult to understand Example 44:
alternateOf(tr:WD-prov-dm-20111018,tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215)

We also have wasDerivedFrom(tr:WD-prov-dm-20111018,tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215)

Since, there is not correlation between wasDerivedFrom and alternateOf (as
far as I know), suggest removing Example 44.

Section 5.6
1. According to the current description of Collection - "Some applications
need to be able to express the provenance of the collection itself: e.g.
who maintains the collection (attribution), which members it contains as it
evolves, and how it was assembled.", Collection seems to be a
specialization Bundle (for describing provenance of provenance).

================


On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <
sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:

> PROV-ISSUE-437 (prov-dm-post-f2f3-review): Final review before last call
> vote [prov-dm]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/437
>
> Raised by: Luc Moreau
> On product: prov-dm
>
>
> This is the issue to collect feedback on the prov-dm document (version
> created after F2F3)
>
> Document to review is available from:
>
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-dm-20120628/prov-dm.html
>
> Question for reviewers: Can the document be published as Last Call working
> draft?
>
> Cheers,
> Luc
>
>
>
>