- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 19:55:35 +0100
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
I'm happy with Ivan's suggestion as I would like to publish as a note. I can make the wiki page. Luc is this fine with you ? Paul On Feb 13, 2013, at 14:43, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > To be very consensus driven:-) I have to say that both of you are right:-) > > - I think having that high level paraphrasing that Paul provided is really useful. It gives the overall picture and that is good to have. I would definitely keep it. > - However, Luc is right in that the director may want to check every details here. So *somewhere* we would need a list of the 12 different and specific exit criteria in [1] and add to it an exact reference and numbers on how and why those are met. If the intention is to publish Paul's document in a note then it may be better to have that on a wiki page, to be used solely at the transition call; but that list has to be somewhere to make the transition call smoother. > > By the way, apart from this minor issue, the document looks great. Dong, Paul, Stefan, you did a great job! > > My 2 cents... > > Ivan > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvCRExitCriteria > > On Feb 13, 2013, at 02:16 , Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > >> 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 > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 18:56:06 UTC