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

Re: PROV-SEM staged, ready for review

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 21:35:57 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|7f3b3fdfeb4c5c5926198d920954e47ap37LbF08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|51632A2D.3030900@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org

Hi James,

This is a very good and very clear document.
The outstanding issues can be closed for me.
I have a few minor questions/suggestions/typos below.


- abstract: PROv -> PROV
- sotd paragraph: add the paragraph about feedback and errata.

- section 1: paragraph 1: definition of provenance: cite prov-dm.

- section 1.1: generation/invalidation  -> generation, invalidation

- section 1.1: make 'not' bold
    not a definitive specification of the ONLY semantics
    NOT a definitive specification of the ONLY semantics

- I like the mapping to events.

-  remark in assocated -> associated

- remark in I didn't understand the last paragraph of the
remark. why is it there is no way to express multi step derivation

- component 15 axioms: I was surprised to see a reference to things among
the axioms (see axiom 5).  But I guess, this is OK.

- section 3.3, remark: well spotted that we miss a constraint for
   Did you identify it when proving properties?

- section 4.3.2. How is \rho(st) defined?  what it 'st' is a constant
   or an identifier?

- section 6.2: for the reader, can you make explicit why this is "WEAK 

- just before 6.2.1: why can you set each time variable to some dummy value?

   Is it because once, you have established an instance is valid, then
   you have already unified all possible time variable to ground
   values. Then, instantiating any time variable can no longer break
   any constraints.

- 6.2.3:

   amond -> among

On 05/04/2013 17:38, James Cheney wrote:
> Hi,
> PROV-SEM is now ready for review here:
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/semantics/releases/NOTE-prov-sem-20130430/Overview.html
> As before, because it renders math using MathML, different browsers do better/worse jobs with it.  I get the best results with Safari (Mac OS X) and Firefox does OK, while Chrome does not do very well.  Accordingly, I've put a PDF built using Safari here:
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/semantics/releases/NOTE-prov-sem-20130430/prov-sem.pdf
> Several people volunteered to review by next week's teleconference, when (I believe) we will vote on all remaining NOTEs.
> Please address the following review questions:
> 1. Is the purpose of the document clear and consistent with the working group's consensus about the semantics? If not, can you suggest clarifications or improvements?
> 2. Are there minor issues that can be corrected easily prior to final release?
> 3. Are there blocking issues that must be addressed prior to final release?
> 4. ISSUE-579 requested that we incorporate an axiomatization using a more standard logic formalism e.g. first-order logic.  The current draft attempts to address this.  Can this issue be closed?
> 5. ISSUE-635 requested that we address the issues of soundness and completeness in the semantics.  This is currently attempted, by generalizing the semantics (which unfortunately also decreases the connection to intuitive notions of time.)  As a result, we have a soundness and weak completeness result stating that any valid PROV instance has a model and vice versa.  Can this issue be closed?
> --James

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
Received on Monday, 8 April 2013 20:37:43 UTC

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