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

Re: prov-links ready for review

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 22:20:04 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|d5b5dc251318d8e87f7c51292a354fefp37MKC08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|51633484.6020303@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Tom,

Thanks for your review. Changes have been implemented and a new version
is  staged at
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/links/releases/NOTE-prov-links-20130430/Overview.html

Responses to your comments interleaved below.
Regards,
Luc


 > 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.

OK Done.

 > - 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. "
 >

No, I was intending to keep it, since it is really its status: it's 
experimental.

 > 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).

I moved it up, just after the definition, and added a sentense stating
that mention cannot be inferred from Specialization.


 >
 > 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.

Followed your suggestion, mostly.

 >
 > And that is it. Great job on this document!
 >
 > Regards,
 > Tom
 >
 >

On 04/04/13 15:06, Tom De Nies wrote:
>
> 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
>
>

-- 
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 21:20:42 UTC

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