RE: Primer staged ready for review

Hi Khalid,

Thanks for your review of the primer.

For comment C4, this seems a good suggestion and we've added a paragraph as follows:

"The scenario describes a blogger exploring the provenance of an online newspaper article, including a chart produced from a government agency dataset. The provenance data comes from different sources: the blogger, the newspaper, the chart generator company and the government agency. The samples of provenance from each source use a different namespace prefix for identifiers that source has created: exb, exn, exc, and exg respectively."

For the other suggestions, we feel that it is better not to follow these for the following reasons.

C1. The reason the sentence you refer to is in, and is an important part of, the section on entities is that, without it people are unlikely to understand that entities are not just things, but perspectives on things. This is a separate matter to specialization: you have to understand what you are representing as an entity even if you express no specialization or alternate relations.

C2. The figure at the start of Section 2 aims to be simple, with a few core concepts and their primary relations. Aside from roles, it also does not include plans, time, quotation, attributes, specialization etc. It is to give readers a sense of how they should be thinking, not aim to be comprehensive. If we divide up discussion of roles into usage/generation and agents/responsibilities, this will make the example very complex. Section 3.5, on Roles, is used not only to introduce roles (which is simple, as you imply) themselves but also to explain qualified PROV-O relations. If we had to explain qualified relations along with generation/usage, this would make the example much more complicated.

C3. The problem with this apparently straightforward change is that, while the intuition of quotation is introduced in Section 2.6 along with derivation, where it naturally fits, it is illustrated in Section 3.9 of the example, because this fits the narrative of the example better (we do not refer to the blog in detail before 3.9). If we changed 2.6 to be called "Derivation, Revision and Quotation", we would want to change 3.6 to match (as with every other section), but 3.6 does not illustrate the use of quotation. While not ideal, we think that the current titles are the least worst option, and justified as quotation is not major concept here, just used to help the example narrative.

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

thanks again,
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: kbelhajj@googlemail.com [kbelhajj@googlemail.com] on behalf of Khalid Belhajjame [Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk]
Sent: 02 April 2013 11:10
To: Miles, Simon
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Primer staged ready for review

Hi Simon and Yolanda,

I have read the primer, which reads very well, so well done.
Below are some minor comments that have to do more with the form than
the content.

Best,
khalid
*****************
Document reviewd:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/NOTE-prov-primer-20130430/Overview.html

C1. I think the following sentence, which is now in Section 2.1 on
Entities will be better placed in Section 2.9 on Alternate: "Entities
may be described as having different attributes and be described from
different perspectives. For example, document D as stored in my file
system, the second version of document D, and D as an evolving
document, are three distinct entities for which we may describe
provenance. "

C2. Section 2.5 is on Roles, and that concept is not depicted in the
Figure in the beginning of Section 2. I think it will be better to
talk about roles in Section 2.3 (when talking about Usage and
Generation), and in Section 2.4, when talking about Agent and
Responsibilities.

C3. In the title of Section 2.6 on Derivation and Revisiion, we may
need to add "Quotation" in the title, as it is mentioned in the body
of the section.

C4. In Section 3 on Examples and Key Concepts, I think it will be good
to have a small paragraph in the introduction of this Section that
describes briefly the examples that will be used in the subsection, as
well as the different namespaces used in the examples, such as
exc,axn, etc. The paragraph does not need to go into the details.



2013/3/29 Miles, Simon <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
>
> Evolutionary Testing of Autonomous Software Agents:
> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1370/

Received on Tuesday, 9 April 2013 16:22:36 UTC