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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-495: ivan's feedback on prov-dm LC [prov-dm]

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:23:39 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|ec6c487741af2b8bc0610eadd0692767o9LCNi08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|50852CBB.5060804@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
CC: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Hi Ivan,
The issue is now closed pending your review.
Luc

On 10/22/2012 12:22 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Hi Ivan,
>
> I have addressed your comments and committed changes:
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/diff/7965e01a1bb3/model/prov-dm.html
>
> A few comment below.
>
> On 09/10/2012 09:26 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-495: ivan's feedback on prov-dm LC [prov-dm]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/495
>>
>> Raised by: Luc Moreau
>> On product: prov-dm
>>
>>
>>
>> Original email: 
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Aug/0001.html
>>
>> Copied below for convenience:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "A Prov document a day keeps the, hm, doctor? away"
>
> A prov issue a day too!
>>
>> Got myself through the prov-dm document today. Congrats, by the 
>> way:-) Only a few comments below, and none of them are show-stopper 
>> in terms of process...
>>
>> - General editorial issue: the document does not make any difference 
>> between normative and non-normative sections. At the moment, all 
>> sections are then normative. Is this intentional? After all, the 
>> examples (like 4.1), but maybe all sections 2-3-4 can be considered 
>> as  non-normative...
>
> We addressed this recently.
>>
>> The differentiation does make sense. If, God Forbid!, there is a 
>> discrepancy between, say, an example and the definition than the 
>> normative section counts. If both of them are normative then, well, 
>> we have a spec inconsistency...
>>
>> - it seems that the " ◊ " character is used for references (or 
>> anchors) or some sort. It is a bit strange for an average spec reader 
>> like me, although it may be a question of taste. Can we try to find 
>> something else (colour, etc)
>
> See separate email. Suggestions welcome.
>>
>> - (I may be wrong in my understanding here…) My impression is that, 
>> in some cases, some relations are actually shorthands that could be 
>> 'opened up' by an application and filled in by further application 
>> details. For example, derivation is a very high level relationship 
>> between two entities; an application may decide to 'open up' that 
>> relationships, describe how an entity was derived by others by virtue 
>> of describing the various activities and agents that are responsible 
>> for the 'WasDerivedFrom' relationship.
>>
>> If what I say is true, I think this is an important feature that 
>> should be emphasized in the introduction section. Applications are 
>> free to decide which level of granularity they want describe, and the 
>> current prov-dm gives them the way to do that. Which is great, but I 
>> think is worth emphasizing in the text; for the time being it is, 
>> sort of, hidden between the lines.
>>
>> (There may be other, similar situations to derivation)
>
> It's a good point. I more or less added it, when we introduced the 
> expanded relations.
>
>>
>> - This is actually the same comment as I had yesterday for the 
>> primer: in 4.1 the character '-' appear in the examples. It is clear 
>> from the description that it replaces a positional argument; it is 
>> probably a good idea to put a note somewhere in the text that that 
>> particular positional argument is time (which of course becomes clear 
>> later, but readers are linear...). Or simply add time as part of the 
>> example?
>
> Added comments in section 4.
>
>>   - Let us be consistent in the in the examples in section 5 with 
>> respect to spaces (or not) after a ','. Compare example 17 and 
>> example 18, for example...
>
> I tried to fix it.  More eyes on this welcome!
>
>>
>> - It is well defined that, for example, start is part of component #1 
>> and not a core term. However, when one gets to the formal definition 
>> of start (5.1.6) then this is not really clear any more, the reader 
>> may forget (after all, there are many terms...). Maybe it would be 
>> possible to separate the core and the non-core terms within 5.1 
>> (using subsections)… (this is of course valid for the other sections, 
>> too)
>
> It was the group feeling that maintaining the distinction 
> core/expanded in the specification of individual concepts was not 
> desirable.
> The tables at the beginning of section 5 and the UML diagrams still 
> make this explicit.
>
>>
>> - Informative references: the dates are wrong for all Prov documents 
>> (all of them are set to 2011…)
>
> Fixed.
>>
>> THIS IS NOT A COMMENT JUST A THOUGHT!: once the prov spec is final, I 
>> wonder whether it would be possible to add to recspec an explicit 
>> generation of provenance into the W3C document using prov and using 
>> RDFa. That would be cool; eating our own dog food, that sort of 
>> things...
>>
>> Cheers
> Luc
>
>> Ivan
>>
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
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 Monday, 22 October 2012 11:24:15 UTC

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