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

Re: prov-links ready for review

From: Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 16:06:24 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+=hbbdJsfOozVoP0HGDuJ7-XnTtvYkwH3CHP5KCxG-nTSJL2Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hello Luc and Tim,

Included below is my review of PROV-Links (latest ED)

It's a very good document, and I could hardly find anything I didn't like.
After considering the minor adjustments below, I believe the document is
ready to be published as a Note.

Minor things:
1. Introduction
- In the 2nd paragraph: you mention "blobs" of provenance twice. I'm not a
real fan of this term, as it implies the bundle to be a "binary large
object", which implies that it is somehow black box, which is not the case,
preferably. On the contrary, the whole concept of mention is there to
provide context about the specialized entity. Changing this to "sets of
provenance" or "named sets of provenance" is clearer in my opinion, and
consistent with the PROV-DM definition.
- I assume this note will be dropped in the final document? "The concept
Mention<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/links/prov-links.html#concept-mention>is
experimental, and for this reason was not defined in PROV
recommendation-track documents. The Provenance Working Group is seeking
feedback from the community on its usefulness in practical scenarios. "

2. Conceptual Definition
- I was confused by the following paragraph:

> Let us consider a bundle and the expression specializationOf(e2,e1)
> occuring in this bundle. The entity e1 may described in multiple other
> bundle bi. From specializationOf(e2,e1), one cannot infer
> prov:mentionOf(e2,e1,b) for a given b, since it is unknown which bi's
> descriptions were used to computed additional aspects of e2. Hence,
> prov:mentionOf has to be asserted.
>
I don't see the added value of this paragraph. It seems to explain the
merit of having mentionOf again, whereas that is already clear from the
previous text. Personally, I was confused by it when I wasn't before I read
it. Was it put here after a review?
If you do decide to keep it, it seems strange for me to put this here. I
would either put it lower, together with the examples, or drop it.
If you do keep it, there is a small typo in "multiple other bundle bi" (the
's' of bundles is missing).

3. Ontological Definition
the text "When :x prov:mentionOf :y and :y is described in Bundle :b, the
triple :x prov:asInBundle :b is also asserted to cite the Bundle in which
:y was described." appears in both PROV-O definitions. This seems a bit
arbitrary and copy-pasted. A suggestion would be to polish this to:

> Property: prov:mentionOf
>
> IRI:http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#mentionOf
>
> prov:mentionOf of is used to specialize an entity as described in another
> bundle, so it's provenance can be augmented in this bundle. prov:asInBundle
> is used to cite the Bundle in which the generalization was mentioned.
>
and

> Property: prov:asInBundle
>
> IRI:http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#asInBundle
>
> prov:asInBundle is used to specify which bundle the general entity of a
> prov:mentionOf statement is described.
> When :x prov:mentionOf :y and :y is described in Bundle :b, the triple :x
> prov:asInBundle :b is also asserted to cite the Bundle in which :y was
> described.
>

Or something similar to make it just that tad bit cleaner.

And that is it. Great job on this document!

Regards,
Tom
Received on Thursday, 4 April 2013 14:07:00 UTC

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