- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:02:59 -0400
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Thanks Luc. I am happy to get the issue closed. Ivan On Oct 22, 2012, at 07:23 , Luc Moreau wrote: > 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 > > ---- 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
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 18:03:24 UTC