- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:23:39 +0100
- 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