Re: Your feedback on pre-LC prov-o

Tim,

You asked:
 > Is the problem you have with granularity? You want to know *which page* it is on?
 > These narratives are very small, and I find it hard to believe that a quick 
scan of the section wouldn't get you there.

Granularity is a big part of it, but also the section references you mention are 
buried in text which makes them harder to spot.   Also, section numbering of the 
term descriptions would help (in conjunction with a ToC).

FWIW, section 4.1 covers 6 pages in my printed copy, with quite small text - 
that's quite a bit to flip through when trying to find a particular property. 
The total of material for which I'd like to see a more detailed ToC is 47 pages.

The trouble is, I suppose, is that there isn't really a way to create an index 
that works on paper without it occupying a whole page.  For making a printed 
version navigable, I think that's a price worth paying, but YMMV.

#g
--

On 18/07/2012 14:27, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> Graham,
>
> In http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#prov-o-at-a-glance :
>
> we say that "these classes and properties are described in section 3.1"
>
> prov:Activity
> prov:Agent
> prov:Entity
> prov:actedOnBehalfOf
> prov:endedAtTime
> prov:startedAtTime
> prov:used
> prov:wasAssociatedWith
> prov:wasAttributedTo
> prov:wasDerivedFrom
> prov:wasGeneratedBy
> prov:wasInformedBy
>
> and "these classes and properties are described in section 3.2"
>
> prov:Bundle
> prov:Collection
> prov:EmptyCollection
> prov:Location
> prov:Organization
> prov:Person
> prov:SoftwareAgent
> prov:alternateOf
> prov:asInBundle
> prov:atLocation
> prov:generated
> prov:generatedAtTime
> prov:hadMember
> prov:hadPrimarySource
> prov:influenced
> prov:invalidated
> prov:invalidatedAtTime
> prov:mentionOf
> prov:specializationOf
> prov:value
> prov:wasEndedBy
> prov:wasInvalidatedBy
> prov:wasQuotedFrom
> prov:wasRevisionOf
> prov:wasStartedBy
> and "these classes and properties are described in section 3.3"
>
> prov:ActivityInfluence
> prov:AgentInfluence
> prov:Association
> prov:Attribution
> prov:Communication
> prov:Delegation
> prov:Derivation
> prov:End
> prov:EntityInfluence
> prov:Generation
> prov:Influence
> prov:InstantaneousEvent
> prov:Invalidation
> prov:Plan
> prov:Quotation
> prov:Revision
> prov:Role
> prov:Source
> prov:Start
> prov:Usage
> prov:activity
> prov:agent
> prov:atTime
> prov:entity
> prov:hadActivity
> prov:hadGeneration
> prov:hadPlan
> prov:hadRole
> prov:hadUsage
> prov:influencer
> prov:qualifiedAssociation
> prov:qualifiedAttribution
> prov:qualifiedCommunication
> prov:qualifiedDelegation
> prov:qualifiedDerivation
> prov:qualifiedEnd
> prov:qualifiedGeneration
> prov:qualifiedInfluence
> prov:qualifiedInvalidation
> prov:qualifiedQuotation
> prov:qualifiedRevision
> prov:qualifiedSource
> prov:qualifiedStart
> prov:qualifiedUsage
> prov:wasInfluencedBy
>
> Is the problem you have with granularity? You want to know *which page* it is on?
> These narratives are very small, and I find it hard to believe that a quick scan of the section wouldn't get you there.
>
> Thanks,
> Tim
>
>
>
> On Jul 18, 2012, at 4:33 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>
>> Tim,
>>
>> I just checked this:
>> [[
>> (1) would it be possible for term names to be included in the table of contents?  I found some aspects the document could be difficult to navigate/cross-reference in printed form.
>>
>> PENDING-REVIEW EDITORIAL http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#prov-o-at-a-glance should be the "print-friendly index" that you're looking for. It is at the top of the document.
>> ]]
>>
>> Unfortunately, this doesn't really help, as there's no obvious ordering of the terms.   (Ideally, they would be page-numbered, but I recognize that HTML isn't very good for that kind of thing (I'm surprised that after all these years, HTML still doesn't support ToC generation as standard).  The compromise I usually make is to have a table of contents that matches the document layout, with section numbering, so I can use that as a kind of "map".  That you don't section-number the individual term descriptions is part of my problem.)
>>
>> This is just an editorial issue, and rather depends how much you care about usability of the spec in print form.
>>
>> #g
>> --
>>
>> On 17/07/2012 18:45, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>>> Graham,
>>>
>>> I've finished responding to all of your feedback [1] to prov-o.
>>>
>>> http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o reflects all changes.
>>>
>>> Please feel free to review our responses and the latest draft and make any more comments.
>>>
>>> You may indicate your dissatisfaction by changing the designation to REOPENED (see the beginning of the page).
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Review_of_prov-o_july_3_2012_for_last_call#Graham
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 19 July 2012 10:11:14 UTC