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

Re: prov-dm issues under review

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:11:20 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|ed4fad3bf6269bf8712bd03cc8e553d6o9IGBM08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|50816D98.40002@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>

The responses to ISSUE-499 and  ISSUE-529 have now been updated [1].
I have also added our response to ISSSUE-449.

Luc

[1] 
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#PROV-DM_.28Under_Review.29

On 10/19/2012 01:42 PM, Paul Groth wrote:
> Hi Luc
>
> Yes - I think both clarifications address the points. I'm happy with both responses.
>
> Regards
> Paul
>
> On Oct 19, 2012, at 13:23, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>>
>> On 10/17/2012 07:23 PM, Paul Groth wrote:
>>> Hi Luc,
>>>
>>> I'm fine with all proposed resolutions except for two:
>>>
>>> For ISSUE-529
>>> - Add to "Prov-dm, as a conceptual model, leaves the implementation of
>>> these inherited types to concrete serializations." Thus,
>>> serializations can support hadMember as a list. This would I believe
>>> address the reviewers comment specifically.
>> I have added the following:
>>
>> As to the question of why doesn't PROV-DM have a list of members as an
>> attribute of Collections, the design of prov-dm makes all associations
>> between PROV entities relations. In effect, this allows us to understand
>> the structure of a provenance graph, just by looking at the relations,
>> without having to process attributes of entities. A given implementation
>> may also to decide to represent collection members as attributes if it
>> finds it convenient.
>>
>>> ISSUE-499
>>> - I think the clarification provided is clear but we could do more to
>>> address the recommendation that somehow the definitions seem circular.
>>> Can we say the words "instant" or immediate in these definitions. We
>>> often make appeals to prov-constraints but I believe that PROV-DM
>>> should stand on its own.
>> We could add the following after the definition of
>> generation/usage/invalidation/start/end in PROV-DM:
>>
>>
>> - Given that a generation is the completion of production of an entity,
>> it is instantaneous.
>> - Given that an invalidation is the start  of destruction, cessation, or
>> expiry, it is instantaneous.
>> - Given that a usage  is  the beginning of utilizing an entity, it is
>> instantaneous.
>> - Given that a start is when an activity is deemed to have started, it
>> is instantaneous.
>> - Given that an end is when an activity is deemed to have ended, it is
>> instantaneous.
>>
>>
>> Would it address your concerns?
>>
>> Luc
>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Paul
>> -- 
>> 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
>>

-- 
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
Received on Friday, 19 October 2012 15:11:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:20 UTC