Re: pairs of implementations?

Checking in to see if the current questionnaire paragraph text 

"Has this implementation been used to consume a prov serialization generated by another tool?  If so, please  identify the other tool and describe how it was used."

is good enough for our purposes or if we should perhaps re-word the question or add some additional questions.

--Stephan

On Oct 22, 2012, at 2:41 AM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote:

> 
> On Oct 19, 2012, at 12:41 PM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:
> 
>> Could we ask that as well?
> 
> We currently have a paragraph question on provenance exchange.
> 
> Question title: Provenance Exchange
> 
> Help Text: Has this implementation been used to consume a prov serialization generated by another tool?  If so, please  identify the other tool and describe how it was used.
> 
> Perhaps with some tweaking to this question we will have what we need.
> 
> As for updating the per-feature support question...
> 
> Google Forms is pretty limited and right the question is structured as a Grid where the user can make one and only one selection for each feature (row in grid) from the following options (columns in the grid): Consumes, Produces, Produces and Consumes, Does not Support.  
> 
> I do not think we can change the question so the user can make multiple selections for any given feature or have any write-in options.  If we add another column that explicitly asks about consumption of externally-produced provenance; the user will be unable to specify any further info such as what external tool produced said feature serialization or in what language (PROV-N, PROV-O, PROV-XML).
> 
> Because of the limitations of the Grid question type I think we should use paragraph text questions to elicit feedback on our more complex questions such as proof of language-specific consumption of externally generated provenance features. 
> 
> --Stephan
> 
> 
>> 
>> Also, I'm wondering for the constraints whether we need to ask on a per constraint basis given that we have this testing procedure approach. Maybe that section can be reduced...
>> 
>> thanks
>> Paul
>> 
>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote:
>> we ask on a per-feature basis if it consumes, but we don't explicitly say 'from another implementation'.
>> 
>> --Stephan
>> 
>> On Oct 19, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:
>> 
>> > Hi Stephan,
>> >
>> > I was looking but couldn't seem to find it. Do we ask whether a particular implementation consumes provenance information from another implementation on a per feature basis?
>> >
>> > cheers
>> > Paul
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> --
>> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
>> Assistant Professor
>> - Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group | 
>>   Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
>> - The Network Institute
>> VU University Amsterdam
>