W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > November 2012

Re: Proposed response to public comments on primer [Deadline: Thursday]

From: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:06:37 +0000
Message-ID: <CAANah+Fx4hDkzi-wgnWkO=oDdvEs-Hmd-Ujb1_5U_pno5TnYJw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>


On 10 November 2012 17:13, Miles, Simon <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hello all,
> A reminder of the proposed responses to public comments on the primer
> (below).
> Please can you say whether you are happy or not with them by Thursday's
> telecon?
> thanks,
> Simon
> Dr Simon Miles
> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
> Evolutionary Testing of Autonomous Software Agents:
> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1370/
> ________________________________
> From: Miles, Simon [simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk]
> Sent: 03 November 2012 18:02
> To: Provenance Working Group WG
> Subject: Proposed response to public comments on primer
> Hello,
> There are some public comments to respond to regarding the primer.
> Specifically, they concern the overview figure, which we have recently
> updated as discussed elsewhere [1] and the primer's explanation of
> specialization and alternate, which clearly confused the reviewer.
> The draft responses are available on the wiki [2] and are copied below.
> Feedback is welcome. In particular, the subsection on specialization and
> alternate has been completely rewritten to try to give a clearer explanation
> [3], and it would be good to know what the WG thinks.
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/574
> [2]
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#PROV_Primer_.28Draft.29
> [3]
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/Primer.html#alternate-entities-and-specialization
> Responses:
> ISSUE-561 (Primer Section 2 figure)
> Original email:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Jul/0010.html
> Tracker: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/561
> Group Response:
>  - Since (and partly prompted by) the reviewer comment, the Working Group
> has discussed the best form for the primer overview diagram.
>  - It was decided to change so that the overview image used by primer is no
> longer to be a copy of the one from the PROV-DM. This is because the
> intention is different: the primer aims to give just a very few concepts and
> relations to give an intuition ahead of the rest of the introduction.
>  - The figure has been changed to be a reduced version of the one used in
> the PROV-O specification, and no link between the diagrams in specs is now
> claimed.
> References:
>  - For a history of the debates: see
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/574
> Changes to the document:
>  - Removed the claim in the primer text that the image is the same as the
> one in PROV-DM.
>  - Changed the primer key concepts (overview) image to be one with a reduced
> set of concepts and relations giving an introductory intuition.
> ISSUE-562, ISSUE-563, ISSUE-564 (Specialization and alternates)
> Original email:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Jul/0010.html
> Tracker: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/561,
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/562,
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/563
> Group Response
>  - In ISSUE-562 and ISSUE-563, the comment is that the primer text implies
> particular things which the reviewer believes to be untrue, but are actually
> correct implications.
>  - First, it is correct that specialization implies that the child entity
> inherits all of the attributes of the parent entity. It is the reviewer's
> counter-example that is an incorrect use of PROV: the "parent" entity of one
> version of a document is not the prior version of the document, but the
> document in general, i.e. independent of version. All versions of a document
> share the attributes of the document in general.
>  - Second, the fact that two specializations of a single general entity are
> alternates of each other is a common case that fits the PROV definition of
> "alternate", and the implication is again correct.
>  - The fact that the reviewer believed the implications to be incorrect
> suggests that the primer did not adequately explain the concepts.
>  - ISSUE-564 relates to the reviewer finding the listed possible uses of the
> alternate relation confusingly distinct. Again, this is probably due to an
> inadequate explanation of the alternate and specialization relations.
>  - The conclusion of the group is that the previous explanation of the
> concepts was not adequately clear.
> References:
>  - Clarifying the meaning of alternate and its relation to specialization:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Oct/0091.html
> Changes to the document:
>  - The intuitive introduction to specialization and alternate relations,
> Section 2.9, has been completely rewritten based around a few use cases each
> with more detail than present before. Specialization is introduced before
> alternate, as it more clearly gives the overall motivation for the
> relations. We believe this gives a clearer indication of what the relations
> mean, and in what cases they should be used.
>  - See
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/Primer.html#alternate-entities-and-specialization
> thanks,
> Simon
> Dr Simon Miles
> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
> Efficient Multi-Granularity Service Composition:
> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1396/
Received on Saturday, 10 November 2012 18:07:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 November 2012 18:07:06 GMT