RE: prov-wg Implementation Report Review (Due Fri Feb 15)

Hi Paul

For me, the purpose is to address the inevitable question that we will get on the call with management. Why do we meet the exit criteria? My suggestion is to have a short section, reusing what is written in the summary at the end of the document, but structured criterion by criterion.  Overall, this may well  spare  us the question.

--
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


________________________________________
From: Paul Groth [p.t.groth@vu.nl]
Sent: 13 February 2013 5:36 AM
To: Luc Moreau
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: prov-wg Implementation Report Review (Due Fri Feb 15)

Hi Luc

Thanks for the comments. My intent was to publish as a note but it shouldn't be part of the family of docs - it's not a specification and will quickly become old.

For Section 1.1 - we seem to disagree on its purpose. My point of view is that the section is a summary. I think it's up to the director and members to look at the report together with the exit criteria. Hence my paraphrasing. My initial inclination was not to have any section like this at all and keep this report about the statistics around implementation. This is similar to what other WGs have done.

I don't  know what the best is - maybe others with more experience (Ivan ) can chime in.

Thanks
Paul

On Feb 12, 2013, at 23:21, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote:

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<mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm

Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 07:16:47 UTC