Re: Primer staged ready for review

Thanks Simon and Yolanda,

khalid


On 9 April 2013 17:21, Miles, Simon <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk> wrote:

> 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/
>
>
>
>