Re: FW: Review of Provenance DM documents

Hi Sam,

Thanks for your input. We have made changes to the latest editor's draft to
address some of your suggestions.  Responses to your specific comments
related to part 1 appear below. (We still have to work on part 2 and 3)

Luc

[1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html

 >
 > Hello,
 >
 >
 >
 > Here is my review of the PROV-DM documents.
 >
 >
 >
 > Best,
 >
 >
 >
 > Sam
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > In general:
 >
 > The overall structure of the document is very clear and things are now
 > nicely separated (data model, its constraints and its expression in
 > PROV-ASN). This allows to find faster the information needed.
 >
 > All three documents are well written and understandable. In general, I
 > would say it is a very good improvement over the previous version
 > where everything was in 1 document.  I would recommend this version to
 > become the editor`s draft.
 >
 >
 >
 > PROV-DM part 1:
 >
 >
 >
 > General Remarks:
 >
 >
 >
 > In Section 1 , the paragraph right in front of section 1.1 talks about
 > an `upgrade path` to enrich simple provenance with extra
 > descriptions. The notion of an `upgrade path` must be clarified,
 > because it is nowhere used in the remainder of the document, neither
 > in PROV-DM part 2. It is confusing at the moment.
 >

The term "upgrade path" was replaced by "refinement".

The last section reuses the term. As the introduction states it, this
is discussed in part 2.



 >
 >
 > Section 2, Subsection2.3: AccountEntity very shortly explained
 > here. The notion of account is better specified in PROV-DM part
 > 2. From the provided definition here it is not clear that the
 > provenance of the same entity can be expressed as different
 > accounts. The definition of AccountEntity also includes ` resource`,
 > which is quite confusing, because it is not part of the provenance
 > terminilogy. Maybe replace it by `Entity`.
 >
 >


More work to be done on this, to decide how we handle accounts.
There is no reference to resource in the definition.

 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > Section 4, Subsection 4.1.4: `A separate PROV-DM relation is used to
 > associate a note with something that is identifiable (see Section on
 > annotation). A given note may be associated with multiple identifiable
 > things.` `Things` is confusing here. It is maybe better to say entity
 > and/or activity. `Thing` brings in some semantics.
 >
 >

This sentence is now removed from section 4.6.1.
A sentence to that effect already exists in 4.6.2.

 >
 > Section 5, Subsection 5.7: The added value of `Original Source` over
 > `Traceability` is not clear. It should be better explained why we need
 > this relation. IMO, it could be expressed as a traceability relation
 > or a specialization of the traceability relation.
 >

Definition of Original Source has been revised. It should avoid the 
ambiguity.



 >
 >
 > Spelling Corrections:
 >
 >
 >
 > Section 2, Subsection 2.1: Activity definition: two phrases after each
 > other are the same: `An activity is anything that can operate on
 > entities. In particular, activities may produce, consume, or transform
 > an entity. Activities that operate on digital entities may for example
 > move, copy, or duplicate them. Activities that operate on digital
 > entities may for example move, copy, or duplicate them.`
 >

The latter sentence is a refinement of the previous one for digital 
entities.
I think this is OK.
 >
 >
 > Section 2, Subsection 2.2: Usage definition: Usage is the beginning on
 > an entity being consumed by an activity. Before usage, the activity
 > had not begun to consume or use to this entity (and could not have
 > been affected by the entity).
 >

on -> of
 >
 >
 > Section 4, Subsection 4.1.4: example: `The note is associated with the
 > entity tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215 previously introduced (hasAnnotation is
 > discussed in Section Annotation). The note's identifier and attributes
 > are declares declared in a separate namespace denoted by prefix ex2.`
 >

Text updated.
 >
 >
 >


On 03/08/2012 04:31 PM, Sam Coppens UGent wrote:
>
> Hello Luc,
>
> I send my review for PROV-DM again, because I am not sure you received 
> it. Two weeks ago, I posted this to the prov mailing list, but with a 
> different email address than the one I am listed on at W3C, because of 
> a mail server crash. Because of this, it took some days before it was 
> distributed to the PROV list. This is, I think, the reason my review 
> wasn`t good received.
>
> In mean time, the mail server is up again and if you want I can send 
> it again to the prov mailing list, this time using the right email 
> address.
>
> Best,
>
> Sam
>
> --
> Sam Coppens
>
> Ghent University - IBBT
> Faculty of Engineering
> Department of Electronics and Information Systems
> Multimedia Lab
>
> Gaston Crommenlaan 8 bus 201
> B-9050 Ledeberg-Ghent
> Belgium
>
> t: +32 9 33 14959
> f: +32 9 33 14896
> t secr: +32 9 33 14911
> e: sam.coppens@ugent.be <mailto:sam.coppens@ugent.be> or 
> samcoppens@hotmail.com <mailto:samcoppens@hotmail.com>
>
>
> URL: http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be 
> <http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be/>
>
> *From:* Sam Coppens UGent [mailto:sam.coppens@ugent.be]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 01, 2012 10:38 AM
> *To:* 'public-prov-wg@w3.org'
> *Subject:* Review of Provenance DM documents
>
> Hello,
>
> Here is my review of the PROV-DM documents.
>
> Best,
>
> Sam
>
> In general:
>
> The overall structure of the document is very clear and things are now 
> nicely separated (data model, its constraints and its expression in 
> PROV-ASN). This allows to find faster the information needed.
>
> All three documents are well written and understandable. In general, I 
> would say it is a very good improvement over the previous version 
> where everything was in 1 document.  I would recommend this version to 
> become the editor`s draft.
>
> PROV-DM part 1:
>
> General Remarks:
>
> In Section 1 , the paragraph right in front of section 1.1 talks about 
> an `upgrade path` to enrich simple provenance with extra descriptions. 
> The notion of an `upgrade path` must be clarified, because it is 
> nowhere used in the remainder of the document, neither in PROV-DM part 
> 2. It is confusing at the moment.
>
> Section 2, Subsection2.3: AccountEntity very shortly explained here. 
> The notion of account is better specified in PROV-DM part 2. From the 
> provided definition here it is not clear that the provenance of the 
> same entity can be expressed as different accounts. The definition of 
> AccountEntity also includes ` resource`, which is quite confusing, 
> because it is not part of the provenance terminilogy. Maybe replace it 
> by `Entity`.
>
> Section 3, Subsection 3.1: The publication activity ex:pub1  ex:pub2 
> used a publication request (ar3:0111);
>
> Section 4, Subsection 4.1.4: `A separate PROV-DM relation is used to 
> associate a note with something that is identifiable (see Section on 
> annotation). A given note may be associated with multiple identifiable 
> things.`  `Things` is confusing here. It is maybe better to say entity 
> and/or activity. `Thing` brings in some semantics.
>
> Section 5, Subsection 5.7: The added value of `Original Source` over 
> `Traceability` is not clear. It should be better explained why we need 
> this relation. IMO, it could be expressed as a traceability relation 
> or a specialization of the traceability relation.
>
> Spelling Corrections:
>
> Section 2, Subsection 2.1: Activity definition: two phrases after each 
> other are the same: `An activity is anything that can operate on 
> entities. In particular, activities may produce, consume, or transform 
> an entity. Activities that operate on digital entities may for example 
> move, copy, or duplicate them. Activities that operate on digital 
> entities may for example move, copy, or duplicate them.`
>
> Section 2, Subsection 2.2: Usage definition: Usage is the beginning on 
> an entity being consumed by an activity. Before usage, the activity 
> had not begun to consume or use to this entity (and could not have 
> been affected by the entity).
>
> Section 4, Subsection 4.1.4: example: `The note is associated with the 
> entity tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215 previously introduced (hasAnnotation is 
> discussed in Section Annotation). The note's identifier and attributes 
> are declares declared in a separate namespace denoted by prefix ex2.`
>
> PROV-DM part 2:
>
> General Remarks:
>
> Section 1 & Section 2: These two sections are further refinements of 
> the already explained data model. IMO, these sections could be 
> included in PROV-DM part 1. The event based perspective on provenance 
> is part of the core prov-dm model. Then PROV-DM part 2 focusses on the 
> additional constraints.
>
> Section 2, Subsection 2.2: The example of different perspectives on a 
> resource with a URL is essential in making accounts of provenance 
> clear. What still needs some attention in the document is the relation 
> entity -- entity record and how they are identified and which of these 
> two identifiers are referred to when pointing to an entity. An example 
> would make it clear. (maybe PROV-DM part 1 is a better place to 
> explain this)
>
> Spelling Corrections:
>
> Section 4, Intro: In this section, we revisit elements and relations 
> of PROV-DM, and examine and examine the constraints associated with 
> their definitions.
>
> Section 4, Subsection 4.2.1: This entity become becomes available for 
> usage after this instantaneous event.
>
> Section 4, Subsection 4.2.6: precise-1 derivation is richer than an 
> imprecise-1 derivation, itself, being more informative that an 
> imprecise-n derivation_._ Hence, the following implications hold.
>
> Section 6, Intro:  We anticipate that verification algorithms could be 
> developedm, though this verification is outside the scope of this 
> specification.
>
> PROV-DM part 3:
>
> General Remarks:
>
> No Remarks.
>
> Spelling Corrections:
>
> Section 3, Subsection 3.2.7: `A specialization relation`s text matches 
> the specializationExpression_ _production.`
>
> --
> Sam Coppens
>
> Ghent University - IBBT
> Faculty of Engineering
> Department of Electronics and Information Systems
> Multimedia Lab
>
> Gaston Crommenlaan 8 bus 201
> B-9050 Ledeberg-Ghent
> Belgium
>
> t: +32 9 33 14959
> f: +32 9 33 14896
> t secr: +32 9 33 14911
> e: sam.coppens@ugent.be <mailto:sam.coppens@ugent.be> or 
> samcoppens@hotmail.com <mailto:samcoppens@hotmail.com>
>
>
> URL: http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be 
> <http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be/>
>

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm