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

Re: {Disarmed} Re: PROV-XML staged, ready for review

From: Stephan Zednik <zednis2@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:27:33 -0600
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <0C8341A6-8E6D-41C1-AD62-ECD8C8D567F7@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On Apr 8, 2013, at 4:37 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> 
> 
> Hi Stephan, Curt, and Hook, 
> 
> In the interest of time, I am sending this now. I will scan my copy tomorrow 
> when I am in the office next.
> 
> I like the document. It will make a good specificiation. 
> 
> We are nearly there. There are a few issues that I would like to see
> fixed before publication.
> 
> 1. A while back, you rightly made the case that elements within a
> bundle/document should not be ordered.  However, recently, you
> reintroduced a sequence here (probably when trying to fix the jaxb
> issue). I don't think it should stay, and it should be reverted back
> to a choice: I think the generated jaxb will still be ok.

See PROV-ISSUE-664

> 
> 2. As part of the design section, we should talk about the identifier
> conventions, especially, that they go beyond what XML does usually.
> 
>   1. All PROV identifiers are expressed as QNames in prov-xml.
>  
>   2. PROV mandates that QNames should be mappable to a uri by concatenating
>      namespace uri to local name.
> 
>   3. Note the restrictive nature of QNames, and some PROV-N identifiers, 
>      such as ex:001 are not valid QNames.  Hence, from an inter-operability
>      viewpoint across representations, implementers should aim to express identifiers
>      as valid QNames rather than more permissive QualifiedNames in PROV-N.

See PROV-ISSUE-665

> 
> 3. (A previous comment that was not implemented)
>    
>     While the examples probably XML-validate, many of them do not
>     satisfy the convention 2.1 above.
> 
>    for instance <agend id="ag/> require, either:
>     - a default namespace to be defined xmlns=MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "ex.org" claiming to be "http://ex.org", or
>     - a prefix to be added  <agend id="ex:ag/>
>    
>    My preference is for the latter option.
> 
>    See attached file for all occurrences I have found problematic.

See PROV-ISSUE-666

> 
> 4. (Another comment I had raised)
> 
>    I find the use of terms "attribute", "element" and "type" very confusing.
>   
>    I suggest a systematic replace as follows, to distinguish the prov
>    and xml usages of the terms.
> 
>    - attribute to become  prov-"attribute" or xml-attribute
>    - element to become  prov-"element" or xml-element
>    - type to become  prov-"type" or xml-type 
> 
>    For prov, I would also put them in quote.
> 
>    Likewise, see attached file for some occurrences. But systematic
>    search is required.

See PROV-ISSUE-667

> 
> 5. At various places, it should be clear that you are borrowing
>    prov-dm definitions or figures (of provenance, or components).
>    Also the introduction seems to be copied verbatim from prov-dm.

What do you suggest?

Before a glossary definition I could put some boiler plate text such as "From PROV-DM:" and then a similar sentence after Figure 1.

The introduction was copied from PROV-DM because I felt the general statements were appropriate for PROV-XML and because it provided an introduction to PROV-DM and the PROV-DM component structure which are both referenced frequently in the PROV-XML Note.  

Do you feel it necessary to explicitly call out the PROV-XML intro as being derived from the PROV-DM intro?

>    
>    
> 6 Can table 1 contain links to xml schema definitions?

Added to current Editors Draft of Note.

> 
> 7. I pointed out that usage of "reference" and "relation" was a bit strange.
>    For reference, I suggested "denote".
>   
>    e.g.   The xml-element prov:activity is used to DENOTE a prov:Activity
>      
>    A PROV type attribute RELATION may be inferred ...
>   
>    I don't know what RELATION you mean here.
> 
> See attached file for typos, and minor issues.

Added to PROV-ISSUE-667

--Stephan

> 
> Thanks,
> Luc 
> 
> 
> 
> On 04/04/2013 10:21, Stephan Zednik wrote:
>> 
>> link to Overview.html https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/xml/releases/NOTE-prov-xml-20130430/Overview.html
>> 
>> Note - links to w3 resources such as respec.js, stylesheets, and images are not using HTTPS and so will not show up browsers that do not follow http links from https pages.  Please view in Firefox or Safari (not Chrome) or view by opening the file in your local copy of the repository.
>> 
>> --Stephan
>> 
>> On Apr 4, 2013, at 3:17 AM, Stephan Zednik <zednis2@rpi.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> I have staged the PROV-XML 2013-04-30 Note Release
>>> 
>>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/adc235306129
>>> 
>>> validation: http://bit.ly/ZbNuQX
>>> 
>>> Curt, could you please generate the diff.html and add it to the staged directory?
>>> 
>>> Also, I will not be able to be on the entirety of the call tomorrow, but I should be able to attend the first 20 mins or so.
>>> 
>>> --Stephan
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 Wednesday, 17 April 2013 01:28:00 UTC

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