W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > April 2013

Re: Internal Review Prov Dictionary

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 12:04:06 +0000
To: Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>
CC: "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>, Sam Coppens Ugent <sam.coppens@ugent.be>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CA997A8B-7757-4CF4-95E1-E78FDD51E76E@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Hi Tom and Sam,

Very good documents. A few minor issues on the "syntax", a few more substantial on the constraints.

I have implemented the syntax and conversion to prov-n and prov-XML in the prov toolbox.

1. Please update sotd paragraph
2. Remove link to editors draft, make style a working group note
3. Section 3: "following the earlier definition for generic collections ...".
Which earlier? You mean prov-dm?
4. Section 3.3.
   I am not convinced by  removal of  a key that does not exist. We are not designing an API to a dictionary, but provenance of a dictionary.  If a removal operation does not remove a key, then it's a no-op, and it should not be documented as removal in the provenance.

5. Section 4. Second sentence of first paragraph: delete

6. Section 5:  ... Will be included ... Are included

  (note that this file is unfinished ....). Delete

7.  Do we really have prov-o# and proc-dictionary# namespaces?  I don't think so.

8. Section 5.2. Example of derivedByInsertion does not have a pair that was inserted.

9. Section 6 delete note

10. Section 6.1. Pls say that <prov:dictionary> is also valid way of declaring.

7. Section 6.2:  keyEntityPair : put key first, entity second in schema and examples

8. Section 6.3: add minOccurs=1 for keyEntityPair

9. Section 6.4 same

10 section6.5 same for key

11. Inference d4 should allow also to infer membership in d1 from membership in d2

12. Inf D5 :  (k,e) instead of (e,k)

13 I think we can simplify d8:

     Replace case 1 by two cases, one for each antecedent, plus replace d3 by d2

Same for case 2

14constraint d9.  It should be invalid to have removed something that did not exist. So removal in empty dictionary is invalid.

15. Constraint d10
     Isn't it it the case that the following in invalid
     DerivedByRemoval(d2,d1,K1) and   DerivedByRemoval(d2,d0,K0)
      Likewise for insertion.

16 d12 is not so much impossibility but uniqueness.

17 there used to be a good example (when last in prov-dm) of a derivation over dictionary, which was introducing uncertainty In the contents. It would be worth restoring this example.


Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom

On 30 Mar 2013, at 12:50, "Tom De Nies" <tom.denies@ugent.be<mailto:tom.denies@ugent.be>> wrote:

Hi Simon, yes,
I forgot to reset the date to the current date.
The Editor's draft is the document to review.

- Tom

2013/3/29 Miles, Simon <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk<mailto:simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>>
Hello Sam,

Can I check I'm looking at the right document, before I review it?

I guess the document is the one at the URL below, but it is dated 12 March 2013. Is this just because the date is not updated yet?



Dr Simon Miles
Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166<tel:%2B44%20%280%2920%207848%201166>

Evolutionary Testing of Autonomous Software Agents:

From: Sam Coppens Ugent [sam.coppens@ugent.be<mailto:sam.coppens@ugent.be>]
Sent: 29 March 2013 16:21
To: Provenance Working Group
Subject: Internal Review Prov Dictionary

Hello Everybody,

The provenance dictionary is updated and ready for internal review (also
the OWL schema and the XML schema of prov:Dictionary)
Note that there are still three open issues on the tracker:
Two of these are editorial, and will be handled next week.
- The CSS issue will be fixed once I know the proper way to include the
production rules
- The lay-out is being improved as we go through the document.

The example is not finished yet. This will be included as an extra
section at the end of the document, and will have one clear example
illustrating the use of hadDictionaryMember, insertion, removal and
insertion with update semantics. We will ask for review of this example
separately. In the meantime, the rest of the document can be reviewed.

The deadline for the review is April 4th, the final vote April 17th.
This way we can incorporate all the remarks of the reviews.

Thanks for your patience!
And have a nice weekend,

Tom & Sam
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2013 12:10:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:35 UTC