Re: Proposal on PROV-DM reorganization

Hi Paul,

Re: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDM_ConsensusProposal

I think this proposal is an improvement, though it goes less far than I 
personally would choose.  I would still prefer a stand-alone document covering 
the core patterns, but there is apparently no appetite for that within the 
working group so I shall not push that point.

Beyond that, here are some specific suggestions relating to your proposal:

1. I'd prefer to see core patterns as a separate top level section rather than a 
sub-section of the overview.  I feel that would help to convey its role as a 
self-contained set of related ideas around which the others structures and terms 
can be used as needed.

2. I'd like the diagram to be at the *start* of the core patterns, not at the 
end.  I believe it can provide a mental framework for a reader to relate the 
concepts as they are described in the ensuing sections.  I'd also suggest the 
diagram (per current DM) be revised to be visually styled more like the one in 
the PROV-O document.  (I'll help with that if asked.)

3. I would not separate Entities/Activities and Derivation into separate 
sub-sections.  When we talk about using provenance in applications, I note that 
we most commonly talk about a "provenance trace" - and it is the interconnection 
of entities, activities, generation and usage that gives us derivation, which in 
my perception is a central element of a provenance trace.  Thus, I would suggest 
presenting these concepts together, then introducing agents and associated 
inter-relationships in a separate sub-section.  I think this is what Tim 
suggested in the last teleconference.

4. I'm not sure that "advanced" is the best term for features that are not part 
of the core pattern.  I can live with it, but I'll also try and come up with 
some alternatives.

5. I'm all for looking to improve modularity of the design, as you also mention 
in your proposal.

6. I'm not sure that it really adds any value to mark core patterns throughout 
the document as you suggest.  Once a reader has internalized the core patterns, 
I think they're pretty obvious when they occur.

#g
--


On 20/05/2012 11:01, Paul Groth wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> During last week's telcon [1] the chairs were tasked to come-up with a
> proposal that tried to reflect consensus on reorganization of the data
> model. This would take into account both Graham's proposal [2] as well
> as the WG discusion and prior agreements.
>
> We've come up with with the following proposal:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDM_ConsensusProposal
>
> We hope this reflects a consensus with the working group and something
> we could proceed on. Is this a good foundation to proceed?
>
> Thanks
> Paul
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-05-17
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDM_Proposal_for_restructuring
>

Received on Monday, 21 May 2012 11:17:25 UTC