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 22:24:11 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|16d8799bf37a9e8a56ded34fca3e6128p37MOG08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|5163357B.5090505@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Graham,

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



 >  On 28/03/2013 10:55, Luc Moreau wrote:
 > >
 > > 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.
 > Reviewing at the above link (retrieved 20130328 at about 14:45 UK time)
 >
 > ...
 >
 > Section 1, para 2:
 >
 > "... therefore, provenance of provenance is itself a critical aspect 
of an
 > information infrastructure such as the Web."
 >
 > This seems to me like a rather strong claim.  (The web got on quite 
well so far
 > without it ;) )
 >
 > Suggest something like: "... therefore, provenance of provenance is 
itself an
 > important aspect of establishing trust in an information 
infrastructure such as
 > the Web."

Done
 >
 > ...
 >
 > Section 1, para 2:
 >
 > "These blobs of provenance descriptions are independent of each 
other, ..."
 > seems to me a strange thing to say, as I don't think total 
independence as
 > implied is intended or particularly useful. Suggest: "These blobs of 
provenance
 > descriptions stand independently of each other, ..."
 >
 > ...

Done

 >
 > Section 5
 >
 > I'm not understanding the motivation or purpose of the constraint
 >
 >    IF mentionOf(e, e1, b1) and mentionOf(e, e2, b2), THEN e1=e2 and 
b1=b2.
 >
 > e.g. It seems to me that if bundle b1 has specializationOf(e1, e2) or
 > mentionOf(e1, e2, b2) then it would make sense for e to be a 
specialization of
 > distinct entities e1 and e2.
 >
 > Rather than just e1 = e2, is it not sufficient to allow:
 >
 >    specializationOf(e1,e2) OR specializationOf(e2,e1) OR e1 = e2
 >
 > ?


The reason for this constraint is the rdf encoding in two separate 
properties.

With a ternary relation, we could express
  mentionOf(e, e1, b1) and  mentionOf(e, e2, b2).

In rdf, we would have
  e prov:mentionOf e1
  e prov:asInBundle b1
  e prov:mentionOf e2
  e prov:asInBundle b2

which would allow us to express
  mentionOf(e, e1, b2) and  mentionOf(e, e2, b1)
but nothing requires e1 to be described in b2 and e2 in b1.

 >
 > ...
 >
 > I think this document is fine for release as a NOTE, but as a parting 
shot I'll
 > reiterate that I'm not seeing what is said by mentionOf(e1, e2, b) 
that would
 > not be covered by separate statements:
 >
 >     specializationOf(e1, e2)
 >     prov:has_provenance(e2, b)
 >

The key difference is that we have no indication that b is a new fixed
aspect of e1 and other additional aspects of e1 may have been computed
using the description of e2 in b.


On 28/03/13 15:36, Graham Klyne wrote:
> On 28/03/2013 10:55, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>
>> 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.
> Reviewing at the above link (retrieved 20130328 at about 14:45 UK time)
>
> ...
>
> Section 1, para 2:
>
> "... therefore, provenance of provenance is itself a critical aspect 
> of an information infrastructure such as the Web."
>
> This seems to me like a rather strong claim.  (The web got on quite 
> well so far without it ;) )
>
> Suggest something like: "... therefore, provenance of provenance is 
> itself an important aspect of establishing trust in an information 
> infrastructure such as the Web."
>
> ...
>
> Section 1, para 2:
>
> "These blobs of provenance descriptions are independent of each other, 
> ..." seems to me a strange thing to say, as I don't think total 
> independence as implied is intended or particularly useful. Suggest: 
> "These blobs of provenance descriptions stand independently of each 
> other, ..."
>
> ...
>
> Section 5
>
> I'm not understanding the motivation or purpose of the constraint
>
>   IF mentionOf(e, e1, b1) and mentionOf(e, e2, b2), THEN e1=e2 and b1=b2.
>
> e.g. It seems to me that if bundle b1 has specializationOf(e1, e2) or 
> mentionOf(e1, e2, b2) then it would make sense for e to be a 
> specialization of distinct entities e1 and e2.
>
> Rather than just e1 = e2, is it not sufficient to allow:
>
>   specializationOf(e1,e2) OR specializationOf(e2,e1) OR e1 = e2
>
> ?
>
> ...
>
> I think this document is fine for release as a NOTE, but as a parting 
> shot I'll reiterate that I'm not seeing what is said by mentionOf(e1, 
> e2, b) that would not be covered by separate statements:
>
>    specializationOf(e1, e2)
>    prov:has_provenance(e2, b)
>
> #g
> -- 
>

-- 
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 21:24:49 UTC

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