Re: PROV-ISSUE-444 (prov-o-to-last-call): Review PROV-O for last call [PROV-O HTML]

Hook,

Thank you for taking the time to review prov-o.

I have placed the contents of your email at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Review_of_prov-o_july_3_2012_for_last_call#Hook
and separated out each issue that you raised.

We will work on these editorial issues as we work through Last Call.

I will contact you with specific follow-ups, but you can always feel free to review our status at the link above.

Designations of "DM" indicates that the change must be made on PROV-DM to take effect in PROV-O.
Designations of "OBE" indicate that the WG has changed the model on your comment.

Regards,
Tim



On Jul 12, 2012, at 6:16 AM, Hua, Hook (388C) wrote:

> Here is my review of the latest editors draft with specific comments:
> 
> 1) Are there any issues that should delay the WG's release of PROV-O as
> Last Call (i.e., is all of the technical work done).
> 
> No major issues. This latest version addresses the items mentioned from
> this week's earlier reviews. Some possible remaining minor grammatical
> fixes and some improvements for added clarity.
> 
> 2) Are the examples and scenario adequate?
> 
> Yes. It adequately sets the stage for, say, how the Earth Science
> community could take the Expanded Terms and qualification pattern to apply
> to Earth science data processing provenance.
> 
> A minor comment on uniformity of the figures. The figures are not
> consistently following the same look and feel, or shape designation of
> Agents, Activities, and Entities. It may improve readability to have the
> figures use the same look and feel. e.g. qualification Figure 4 uses
> intuitive shapes e.g. pentagons for agents. Contrast this with figures 1 &
> 3 which do not differentiate types. Figure 2 does differentiate type shape
> but is inconsistent with figure 4. Figures 1 & 3's arrows appears to be
> Omnigraffle-like.
> 
> 3) Should the links to prov-dm, prov-constraints, and prov-n stay in the
> cross reference?
> 
> prov-dm should stay.
> 
> 
> 4) More specific comments below:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Introduction
> 
> general: The acronyms "PROV Ontology" (PROV-O) and "PROV Data Model"
> [PROV-DM] are introduced in the first sentence. But the acronyms and full
> terms are both still used thereafter. Was that intentional for clarity?
> Otherwise, what about sticking with the acronym after the first sentence
> for uniformity?
> 
> second paragraph: change "and thereby facilitate interoperableŠ" to "and
> thereby facilitates interoperable..."
> 
> 
> 3.1 Starting Point Terms
> 
> Two paragraphs contain prov:wasInformedBy and prov:wasDerivedFrom that are
> not hyperlinked like the rest of the properties elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 3.2 Expanded Terms
> 
> In the first paragraph, "The additional terms are illustrated in the
> following figure and can be separated into five different categories."
> Following that sentence, explicitly stating a concise bulleted list of the
> five categories would help guide the next few paragraphs of narratives on
> the five categories. (Similar to how it was done at the beginning of
> section 4) How about adding a bulleted list after the sentence such as the
> one Paul described in his July 9, 2012 email:
>  1. Extension of Starting Point Terms
>  2. Entities and Abstraction
>  3. Describing Entities Further
>  4. Entity Lifetimes
>  5. Activity Lifetimes
> 
> 
> Some paragraphs have terms that are not hyperlinked like the rest of the
> terms elsewhere.
> 
> Second category: "prov:mentionOf is a special type of
> prov:specializationOf whose subject presents as an aspect a particular
> prov:Bundle in which its more general Entity was described". was the
> intention "..whose subject presents an aspect as a particular"
> 
> Second category's levels of abstraction almost hints to FRBR. Is it
> worthwhile to mentioned it for reference?
> 
> 
> 
> 3.3 Qualified Terms
> 
> Some paragraphs have terms that are not hyperlinked like the rest of the
> terms elsewhere.
> 
> After Figure 4: change "chart making example" to "chart-making example".
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Cross reference for PROV-O classes and properties
> 
> Are the following disjoint? Class: prov:EmptyCollection,
> prov:IncompleteCollection, prov:CompleteCollection
> 
> Noticed some that/which phrasing. "that" is a restrictive clause, while
> "which" is a non restrictive clause.
> 
> Property: prov:endedAtTime
> - reads funny. how about changing from "The activity no longer exists
> after its end." to "The activity no longer exists after it ended."
> - change from "known as trigger, that terminated" to "known as trigger,
> which terminated"
> 
> Property: prov:startedAtTime
> - reads funny. how about changing from "before its start" to "before it
> started"
> - change from "trigger, that set off" to "trigger, which set off"
> 
> Property: prov:wasGeneratedBy
> - misspelling: "Entitites"
> 
> Class: prov:IncompleteCollection
> - fragmented sentence: "A collection that is believed to include more
> members in addition to those specified in the entity-set."
>   how about: "A collection that is believed to include more members than
> those specified in the entity-set."
> 
> Property: prov:wasEndedBy
> - change from "trigger, that terminated" to "trigger, which terminated"
> 
> Property: prov:wasRevisionOf
> - change from "trigger, that set off" to "trigger, which set off"
> - change from "starter, that generated" to "starter, which generated"
> - change from "trigger, that initiated" to "trigger, which initiated"
> 
> Class: prov:AgentInfluence
> - change from "intended to be an general" to "intended to be a general"
> 
> Class: prov:InstantaneousEvent
> - change from "instantaneous events (or just events), that mark
> transitions" to "instantaneous events (or just events), which mark
> transitions"
> 
> Class: prov:Source
> - change from "as trigger, that set off" to "as trigger, which set off"
> - change from "as starter, that generated" to "as starter, which
> generated"
> 
> Property: prov:atTime
> - change from "instantaneous events (or just events), that mark
> transitions" to "instantaneous events (or just events), which mark
> transitions"
> 
> Property: prov:hadRole
> - should we change "assumes" to past tense for consistency? "The
> _optional_ Role that an Entity assumes in the context of an Activity."
> 
> Property: prov:qualifiedEnd
> - change from "as trigger, that terminated" to "as trigger, which
> terminated"
> - change from "as ender that generated" to "as ender, which generated"
> 
> Property: prov:qualifiedStart
> - change from "as trigger, that set off" to "as trigger, which set off"
> 
> 
> A. PROV-O OWL Profile
> 
> Last paragraph: add comma before nonrestrictive "which". Change from "OWL
> 2 Full profile which also understands the unions." to "OWL 2 Full profile,
> which also understands the unions."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --Hook
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2012 16:45:11 UTC