- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 22:21:23 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|3df4f2e267c405206b2a2a6813b4dfd7p1BMLU08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|511AC063>
Hi Paul, Dong, Stephan, Thanks for producing the document. It looks very good, and summarise results neatly. A few comments/suggestions: 1. What is the plan for this document? Is it to make a note of it? It would be nice for it to have some formal status fot it. If note, should it be part of the PROV family of documents? 2. abstract: I don't think the first sentence is right. We don't report on implementation and usage of the prov family, but only the 4 normative specifications of the prov family of documents. -> This document reports on implementations an dusage of the four normative specifications [prov-o, prov-dm, prov-n, prov-constraints] of the PROV Family of Documents [PROV-OVERVIEW]. 3. section 1: bullet 2: "We document that the prov-constraints specification is implementable". The intro was saying you were taking two approaches. So what is the approach? 4. section1: bullet 1: we document that there are multiple ... -> we document the existence of multiple ... we document that there are at least ... -> we document the existence of at least ... 5. Section 1.1. I would make it section 5, after the facts have been presented 6. Section 1.1. I would not try to paraphrase the exit criteria. The risk is that the new wording may introduce a different semantics. 7. Section 1.1, I would be factual. To start with just number the Exit criteria. PROV CR Exit Criteria 1.a PROV-O ... PROV CR Exit Criteria 1.b PROV-O ... PROV CR Exit Criteria 2.a PROV-N ... PROV CR Exit Criteria 2.b PROV-N ... PROV CR Exit Criteria 3 PROV-DM ... PROV CR Exit Criteria 4 PROV-Constraints ... 8. Section 3.1 shows that a minimum of 4 implementations produce and consume all constructs defined in prov-dm. Do you mean BOTH produce AND consume, or EITHER produce OR consume? This said, it's not a justification for us meeting PROV-DM exit criteria. We should say: Met because PROV CR Exit Criteria 1.a, 1.b, 2.a, 2.b were all met. 9. I don't think "For PROV-O, the implementations are from three separate institutions" is precise enough. It could be satisfied by one pair being from one institution. I would be more factual (reusing your summary): PROV CR Exit Criteria 1.b PROV-O is met because: The ProvValidator (University of Southampton) validates (Consumes) all PROV-O terms generated by PROVoKing (King's College London) The prov-check (VU University of Amsterdam) validates all PROV-O terms converted by the ProvToolbox (University of Southampton) 10 For prov-n, I would also reuse your summary. PROV CR Exit Criteria 2.b PROV-N is met because: - The ProvValidator (University of Southampton) validates (consumes) all PROV-N terms generated by the Provenance Server and the PROV-Python library (University of Southampton, Python code base) - The ProvValidator (University of Southampton) validates (consumes) some PROV-N terms generated by APROVeD (Ghent University) - The ProvValidator (University of Southampton) validates (consumes) all PROV-N terms from the examples in the PROV-DM document (Provenance Working Group) PROV-DM documents -> PROV-DM document 11. It would be nice to say something along the lines of "The WG recognizes that implementing the PROV-Constraints document requires substantial effort. It is nice to see that three radically different appraoches were chosen to implement this specification: SPARQL, Java, Prolog, which speaks for the implementability of this specification." 12. Prov-json: check capitalization. On 11/02/13 21:41, Paul Groth wrote: > Hi All, > > You can find a draft of our implementation report at: > > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/reports/prov-implementations.html > > A couple of notes: > - Please let us know what you think. > - Comments due by Fri Feb 15 so that we can process the comments in-time > - Thanks to Tim & Stephan for their usability comments. > - We will run the scripts again next week. So please if you have any > more implementations or datasets that use PROV, or know of anybody who > does, tell them there's still time to fill one of the surveys in. > Given that we will add the acknowledgements next week. > > Finally, thanks to Dong who did a brilliant job of generating the > tables within the report. > > Thanks > Paul > > P.S. We now have more reported implementations (at time of report) > than SKOS, OWL2, SPARQL, RIF, RDFa, and RDF :-) > > -- 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 Tuesday, 12 February 2013 22:21:59 UTC