RE: Primer staged ready for review

Hi Daniel,

We have adopted all your suggestions for the primer, with the exception of adding a namespaces table. The reasons we believe the table may not be appropriate are that most of the namespaces are examples, where the URI is not meaningful and just the prefix is necessary, and also that it implies more formality than appropriate for an informal document. We have added more text clarifying the meaning of the different example namespaces, however.

To clarify some questions you raised: (1) in the description of specialization, "they" was used to refer to a single person in a gender-neutral way. However, we agree this is potentially confusing, so changed the text to avoid this; (2) "entity-centered" should have been "agent-centered" (to distingish from "object-centered").

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/Primer.html

thanks for your review,
Simon

Dr Simon Miles
Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166

Modelling the Provenance of Data in Autonomous Systems:
http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1264/
________________________________
From: dgarijov@gmail.com [dgarijov@gmail.com] on behalf of Daniel Garijo [dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es]
Sent: 01 April 2013 15:19
To: Miles, Simon
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Primer staged ready for review

Hi Simon,
I have just reviewed the Primer. It looks very good, congrats to you and Yolanda!.
I have some minor editorial comments, which you can find at the end of this message.
Best,
Daniel
*****************
Document reviewd: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/NOTE-prov-primer-20130430/Overview.html

The following sentence at the end of section one ends up abruptly:
"There are additional reference documents for PROV that are not covered in this primer, including the PROV Access and Query aspects of the specification [PROV-AQ], the constraints on the PROV data model [PROV-CONSTRAINTS], a formal semantics of the PROV data model [PROV-SEM]."
-->I would add an "and":
There are additional reference documents for PROV that are not covered in this primer, including the PROV Access and Query aspects of the specification [PROV-AQ]  and the constraints on the PROV data model [PROV-CONSTRAINTS], a formal semantics of the PROV data model [PROV-SEM].

I got lost in this paragrah, in section 2.9:
"Two individuals may create provenance referring to the same thing from different perspectives. For example, the author of an article may attribute that article to themselves using PROV while, independently, a reader might quote a fact from that article elsewhere and document this in PROV. If the author later changes the fact, then from the reader's perspective there are now two versions of the article, and they had quoted from the version before the change. From the author's perspective, there is a single article, attributed to the author. If either of them, or a third party, were to connect the two PROV records, they would say that the article as referred to by the reader is a specialization of the same article as referred to by the author."
-->By "they" what are you referring to? If the author changes the article in another version, then we have the original article, the reviewed article and the article quoting the original one. I don't see how 2 are quoting the original one. Could you please clarify this part? I also got a bit confused by the "them" afterwards.

In the summary of the end, we find:
 "Derek took a process-centered perspective and combined it with object-centered and entity-centered provenance information."
-->What is the difference between object-centered and entity centered provenance?

"Integrate provenance-related information represented in other vocabularies. The FOAF vocabulary was used for specifying details about Derek and his company. The Dublin Core vocabulary was also used."
-->Since you add how foaf was used, i think it would make sense to add that dc was used for describing the title.

Finally, it would be nice to see a table with the namespaces used before the examples, similarly to what prov-o does. But they are well described in the text, so if it's considered redundant I'm ok without it.

Ah, I thought that the "Authors" were going to be edited as "contributors", but I haven't seen it in this version yet.



2013/3/29 Miles, Simon <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk<mailto:simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>>
Hello,

The primer is now staged and ready for review:

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/NOTE-prov-primer-20130430/Overview.html

Please provide reviews by 4 April.

thanks,
Simon and Yolanda

Dr Simon Miles
Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166<tel:%2B44%20%280%2920%207848%201166>

Evolutionary Testing of Autonomous Software Agents:
http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1370/