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 22:22:34 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|797872440b021425af93568fb9a2c6a4p37MNr08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|5163351A.8030104@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>

Hi Simon,

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, Tim,
 >
 >
 >
 > Please find my review of PROV-Links below.
 >
 >
 >
 > In general, it is a good, clear document. I'm still not sold on the 
appropr=
 > iateness of the solution, but I'll hold my tongue on that :-)
 >
 >
 >
 > Section 1
 > ---------
 >
 > 3rd paragraph:
 >
 >
 >
 > I got rather lost in the first two sentences. The first sentence 
refers to =
 > a party that creates "some data and its provenance", and a consumer. 
The se=
 > cond sentence ends by referring to "another producer". I assume this 
is a t=
 > hird actor, but couldn't see how it fitted together. I think it just 
needs =
 > disentangling or rephrasing.
 >
 >

OK, I have added (consumer) and (producer) in the first sentence.

 >
 > Later in the same paragraph: "the description as created by the 
producer in=
 >  situ, i.e. in its bundle". It hasn't been said before this point 
that the =
 > producer has put its provenance into a bundle.


OK, I have added "For this to work, this specification assume that 
provenance created by the producer is contained in a bundle, so that 
others such as the consumer, can refer to it, by means of the bundle 
identifier."


 >
 >
 >
 > 4th paragraph:
 >
 >
 >
 > "as created by the producer in this specific bundle". I think "this" 
should=
 >  be "a" (otherwise it is not clear which bundle you are referring 
to). You =
 > might consider italicising "specific bundle" to retain the emphasis 
that I =
 > think "this" was meant to convey.

OK, done.

 >
 >
 >
 > 5th paragraph:
 >
 >
 >
 > While most of the section is clear, it doesn't seem explained at all 
here w=
 > hy one entity is a specialization of the other. This aspect seems to 
requir=
 > e quite an in-depth knowledge of PROV to appreciate, so a brief 
intuition w=
 > ould be very helpful.

The previous paragraph already referred to "specialize it"
... allowing the consumer to add their own view to it. I feel that
this is sufficient for intuition, but an explicit reference to
specialziaiton has been added.



 >
 >
 >
 > Section 2
 > ---------
 >
 >
 > Typo a little above Example 1: "The entity e1 may described"
 >
 >
 >
 > Example 2 text: "rendered by a visualisation tool" ("visualisation" 
needs t=
 > o be Americanized)
 >

Done

 >
 >
 > Section 3
 > ---------
 >
 >
 > The text accompanying property prov:mentionOf talks about its use in 
conjun=
 > ction with the other property. Shouldn't there also be a 
definition/descrip=
 > tion of the meaning of the property itself? What does prov:mentionOf 
mean w=
 > hen asserted?
 >

The specification does not define the meaning of prov:mentionOf by itself.

 >
 >
 > thanks,
 >
 > Simon
 >
 >
 >
 > Dr Simon Miles
 >
 > Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
 >
 > Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
 >
 > +44 (0)20 7848 1166
 >
 >
 >
 > Evolutionary Testing of Autonomous Software Agents:
 >
 > http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1370/
 >
 >
 >
 > ________________________________________
 >
 > From: Luc Moreau [l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
 >
 > Sent: 28 March 2013 10:55
 >
 > To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
 >
 > Subject: prov-links ready for review
 >
 >
 >
 > Dear all,
 >
 >
 >
 > I made an editorial pass over prov-links.
 >
 >
 >
 > The staged version, in its final NOTE form, is available from:
 >
 > 
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/links/releases/NOTE-prov-links=
 > -20130430/Overview.html
 >
 >
 >
 > It is now ready for internal review. We will assign reviewers today
 >
 > during the
 >
 > call.
 >
 >
 >
 > Cheers,
 >
 > Luc
 >
 >
 >
 > --
 >
 > 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
 >
 >
 >
 >





On 01/04/13 20:02, Miles, Simon wrote:
> Hello Luc, Tim,
>
> Please find my review of PROV-Links below.
>
> In general, it is a good, clear document. I'm still not sold on the appropriateness of the solution, but I'll hold my tongue on that :-)
>
> Section 1
> ======
> 3rd paragraph:
>
> I got rather lost in the first two sentences. The first sentence refers to a party that creates "some data and its provenance", and a consumer. The second sentence ends by referring to "another producer". I assume this is a third actor, but couldn't see how it fitted together. I think it just needs disentangling or rephrasing.
>
> Later in the same paragraph: "the description as created by the producer in situ, i.e. in its bundle". It hasn't been said before this point that the producer has put its provenance into a bundle.
>
> 4th paragraph:
>
> "as created by the producer in this specific bundle". I think "this" should be "a" (otherwise it is not clear which bundle you are referring to). You might consider italicising "specific bundle" to retain the emphasis that I think "this" was meant to convey.
>
> 5th paragraph:
>
> While most of the section is clear, it doesn't seem explained at all here why one entity is a specialization of the other. This aspect seems to require quite an in-depth knowledge of PROV to appreciate, so a brief intuition would be very helpful.
>
> Section 2
> ======
> Typo a little above Example 1: "The entity e1 may described"
>
> Example 2 text: "rendered by a visualisation tool" ("visualisation" needs to be Americanized)
>
> Section 3
> ======
> The text accompanying property prov:mentionOf talks about its use in conjunction with the other property. Shouldn't there also be a definition/description of the meaning of the property itself? What does prov:mentionOf mean when asserted?
>
> thanks,
> Simon
>
> Dr Simon Miles
> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
>
> Evolutionary Testing of Autonomous Software Agents:
> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1370/
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Luc Moreau [l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
> Sent: 28 March 2013 10:55
> To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: prov-links ready for review
>
> Dear all,
>
> I made an editorial pass over prov-links.
>
> The staged version, in its final NOTE form, is available from:
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/links/releases/NOTE-prov-links-20130430/Overview.html
>
> It is now ready for internal review. We will assign reviewers today
> during the
> call.
>
> Cheers,
> Luc
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
>

-- 
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 21:24:25 UTC

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