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

Re: Primer staged ready for review

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 18:23:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CAExK0DdfsOys4TR2gqnseCe9YzOL3hF54+RUDruouh_teOWSig@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Perfect, thanks.
Daniel


2013/4/9 Miles, Simon <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>

>  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>
>
>>  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 16:24:26 UTC

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