Re: PROV-DM Simplication Reviewer Feedback...

Hi Eric,

Paolo and I have made changes following your feedback.
Our responses can be found below.

This now completes WD4. Notes have been inserted in the document,
which we will tackle as part of WD5.

We are proposing to close ISSUE-274. Let us know if this is fine with you.
Regards,
Luc


 > My apologies for being so late on providing reviewer feedback.
 >
 > Overall I enjoyed the PROV-DM document, I felt that the authors have
 > done an incredible job helping readers easily relate concepts in the
 > data model.  Here are my comments and suggestions.
 >
 > Eric
 >
 > ~~~
 >
 > Introduction
 >
 > I agreed with the discussion thread on changes to the introduction
 > that introduced the purpose of the data model to describe provenance
 > in natural language.
 >
 > Section 2.3 – I have mixed feelings about bringing out these concepts,
 > they don’t tie into the example and collections isn’t mentioned again
 > until section 5.8.  While they are important perhaps could this
 > section be left out of section 2?

This comment needs to be re-considered later. At this stage, I would
prefer to keep these concepts there, until the model is completely
finalized. We could reassess then.

 >
 > Section 3 Example
 >
 > Prior to the auditor example could an ultra simple example debuting an
 > agent, process and entity something like “w3:Consortium publishes a
 > technical report”?

Added sentence, at the beginning of section 3.

 >
 > I’m wondering if the detailed auditor provenance example could be
 > introduced first in a human readable story format prior to the
 > bulleted list that highlights the specific provenance related
 > concepts.

Added descriptions in section 3.1 and 3.2.
 >
 > In the example  use of the somewhat cryptic working draft names
 > “tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215” “tr:WD-prov-dm-20111018”  is a bit difficult
 > to following because I found myself mentally parsing the document
 > names to keep track of the different documents.   While this might be
 > less realistic something like model-rev1.html, model-rev2.html might
 > illustrate the same ideas.

The whole point was to use real identifiers, to be close to "scruffy
provenance".

 >
 > I am wondering if it might be more intuitive if the provenance graphic
 > illustration preceeded the PROV-ASN notation.  It provides a graphic
 > that a person can study as they study the PROV-DM assertions in
 > PROV-ASN notation.

It was difficult to reorganize, since we needed to introduce the
various concepts. So, instead, a sentence introduces the graphical
notation.

 >
 > The graphic illustration seems to capture all the examples of
 > provenance from the bulleted list while the PROV-DM assertions in
 > PROV-ASN seem to be either incomplete (there isn’t a one to one
 > correspondence to follow from the example to the PROV-DM assertions.

I am not sure I understand.
Need to get Eric to point to concrete differences.

 >
 > 3.2  Great job bringing in the concept of viewing other perspectives
 > on the same example.
 >
 > 4.2  Activity names in the table need updating.
 >

  which names in the table?

 > 4.3.3.5  prov:location – Could we change the wording slightly to say
 > that Location is loosely based on an ISO 19112 but can also refer to
 > non-geographic places such as a directory or row/column?  The specific
 > definition from ISO19112 is location:
 > identifiable geographic place  EXAMPLE “Eiffel Tower”, “Madrid”, 
“California””
 >

Updated location definition to allow for non-geographic places.


On 23/02/2012 09:32, Eric Stephan wrote:
> My apologies for being so late on providing reviewer feedback.
>
> Overall I enjoyed the PROV-DM document, I felt that the authors have
> done an incredible job helping readers easily relate concepts in the
> data model.  Here are my comments and suggestions.
>
> Eric
>
> ~~~
>
> Introduction
>
> I agreed with the discussion thread on changes to the introduction
> that introduced the purpose of the data model to describe provenance
> in natural language.
>
> Section 2.3 – I have mixed feelings about bringing out these concepts,
> they don’t tie into the example and collections isn’t mentioned again
> until section 5.8.  While they are important perhaps could this
> section be left out of section 2?
>
> Section 3 Example
>
> Prior to the auditor example could an ultra simple example debuting an
> agent, process and entity something like “w3:Consortium publishes a
> technical report”?
>
> I’m wondering if the detailed auditor provenance example could be
> introduced first in a human readable story format prior to the
> bulleted list that highlights the specific provenance related
> concepts.
>
> In the example  use of the somewhat cryptic working draft names
> “tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215” “tr:WD-prov-dm-20111018”  is a bit difficult
> to following because I found myself mentally parsing the document
> names to keep track of the different documents.   While this might be
> less realistic something like model-rev1.html, model-rev2.html might
> illustrate the same ideas.
>
> I am wondering if it might be more intuitive if the provenance graphic
> illustration preceeded the PROV-ASN notation.  It provides a graphic
> that a person can study as they study the PROV-DM assertions in
> PROV-ASN notation.
>
> The graphic illustration seems to capture all the examples of
> provenance from the bulleted list while the PROV-DM assertions in
> PROV-ASN seem to be either incomplete (there isn’t a one to one
> correspondence to follow from the example to the PROV-DM assertions.
>
> 3.2  Great job bringing in the concept of viewing other perspectives
> on the same example.
>
> 4.2  Activity names in the table need updating.
>
> 4.3.3.5  prov:location – Could we change the wording slightly to say
> that Location is loosely based on an ISO 19112 but can also refer to
> non-geographic places such as a directory or row/column?  The specific
> definition from ISO19112 is location:
> identifiable geographic place  EXAMPLE “Eiffel Tower”, “Madrid”, “California””
>
>

Received on Saturday, 3 March 2012 15:07:04 UTC