- From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 17:57:11 +0100
- To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi, This pre-LC issue seems to still be open. It seems to now be addressed, except for some suggestions/comments about figures that remain in the LC working draft as "notes". I propose to close it if there is no objection in the next 24 hours. --James On Aug 30, 2012, at 7:15 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > PROV-ISSUE-490 (prov-constraints-lc-editorial): PROV-CONSTRAINTS pre-Last Call editorial issues [prov-dm-constraints] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/490 > > Raised by: James Cheney > On product: prov-dm-constraints > > This issue collects remaining editorial issues in PROV-CONSTRAINTS to remind editors to fix them before last call release. > > Some of these may already be done; they were listed as needing work in the reviews, though. > > 1. Make rule names uniform, as suggested by Paul. > > 2. Tim's suggestions about the figures. > > 3. Stian's concern about the summary table and figures. > > -- Details -- > > > 1. Make rule names uniform, as suggested by Paul: > >> >> Minor Notes: >> >> - PROV objects or prov constructs - check the consistency on this >> - inconsistency with naming. Do you always want to end inference with >> "-inference". See Inference 11 (derivation-generation-use) and >> Inference 10 (wasEndedBy-inference) >> > > The terminology 'prov construct' is not present (anymore) in the document. > > I updated some of the names, but still: > TODO: make rule names more uniform. > > 2. Update figures following suggestions from Tim: > >> >> >> 37) >> >> Figure 1 >> I would think that the label numbering on the activities would be >> reversed: a1 starts before a2 starts before a3. >> >> suggest changing labeling for more natural order. >> >> >> > >> >> 52) >> >> The visual style in Figure 2(a), where the orange constraint triangle >>> extends to touch the events that it orders, is not used in the >>> remaining portions of the figure. >> >> suggest to carry this convention into the rest of the subfigures. >> > >> 53) >> >> Figure 2 >> >> >> "are represented by vertical dotted lines (…, or intersecting usage and generation edges)" >> >> >> There seems to be visual ambiguity in the visual style convention. Is >> the time of the usage/generation at the location the (Activity,Entity) >> arrow crosses the vertical line? How does that intersection point >> differ from the point that the line connects to the activity (for >> generation) or entity (for usage)? If these two points were made one >> in the same, would there be any loss of information? Eliminating any >> visual distinctions that are not encoding the underlying model will >> help avoid confusion and distraction while reading the figures. >> >> >> 54) >> >> >> Figure2 >> >> A note on my note: "Miscellanous suggestions about figures (originally from Tim Lebo):" >> >> The suggestion is to make the diagonal solid arrow be dotted, like the vertical "usage" line. >> >> >> Further, I'd suggest to make the timeline a solid line, to distinguish from the event style. >> >> What is the purpose of the dotted horizontal line on the bottom of each subfigure? >> >> >> >> >> Suggest to make the start and end vertical lines BLUE to match the activity. >> >> > > > 3. Stian's concern about the summary table: > >> >> 2.3 Summary of constraints.. >> >> >> This table is utterly confusing to me as it is not a summary, it does >> not tell me anything, and I don't understand the columns. (Not helped >> by the lack of colours and borders on a print out!) >> >> I can see it is useful to have a kind of index of all the constraints, >> but the table needs some work to be understandable. In the web version >> it is kind-of OK, since the constraints have human readable names - >> but is there a reason to keep the third column rather than simple >> horisontal headers? Perhaps even the Type/Relation column could be >> done as headers? >> > >> >> >>> 5.2.2 Entity constraints >> >> Figure 3b) implies that the deriving activity starts *after* usage and >> finishes *before* generation. extend blue box to extend beyond both >> dotted vertical lines. >> >> I don't understand 3c), something seems to be missing. The lower arrow >> from e2 has no label (was derived from?), and there are no activities. >> > > >> Constraint 38 and 40 are not shown in Figure 3. >> >> > > >> >> Figure 5a) is very difficult to understand, as the extent of the two >> triangles is not shown. Could this be added, such as in 2a)? >> > > > > > -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 16:57:37 UTC