Re: PROV-ISSUE-630 (prov-sem-fpwd-review): PROV-SEM review for FPWD [Formal Semantics]

Hi James,

The prov-sem document reads well, and I think it can be released as a
first public working draft. I listed some minor issues that can be
fixed quickly before doing so. Below are the answers to your
questions. For each question I listed the associated comments below,
when appropriate.

Regards, khalid

Review questions:

1.  Is the purpose of the document clear and consistent with the
working group's consensus about the semantics?  If not, can you
suggest clarifications or improvements?

Yes.


2.  Are there minor issues that can be corrected easily prior to FPWD release?

Yes, I am listing them below.

2.1 In component 1 (things). The second bullet states that "a function
lifetime:Things→Intervals from objects to time intervals". Shouldnt it
be "from things to time intervals"?

2.2 In section 3.2, I think it would be good to add text explaining
the relationship between Things and Objects, before definition
Objects.

2.3 In the definition of Component 10 (derivations), I think version
should be replaced by revision.

2.4 In Section 3.3, when listing simple relations, the variable "g" is
not introduced. Actually I think you meant to use "evt" instead.

2.5 In the same section, in the first bullet "use" should be replaced
by "usage" as this was the term used when defining events in component
8 (events).

2.5 In the same section, there is an error in talking about
invalidation (bullet 3), min(lifetime(e)) = time(evt) should be
modified to max(lifetime(e)) = time(evt)

2.6 The document makes distinguishes between precise and iprecise
derivation, and refer to "Imprecise wasDerivedFrom". PROV-DM does not
makes that distinction anymore. I think distinguishing the two is
worthwile in ProvSem. So here the suggestion is add a sentence or two
introducing the two kinds of derivation and not referring to the
PROV-DM.

2.7 In the proof of inference 16, inference 17 and inference 18,
"rho(e1)" should be replaced by "p(e1)".


3.  Are there blocking issues that must be addressed prior to release
as a first public working draft?


 There are no blocking issues before release as a first public working draft.


4.  Are there non-blocking, but important issues that should be
discussed and resolved for future editions? (no need to list TODOs
already reflected in the document itself, unless there is disagreement
about how to resolve them).

The following comments can be included later on. They are by no mean blocking.

4.1 I noticed that bundles are not mentioned in the document. Is there
a reason for that?

4.2 In the definition of Component 3 (entities), the function thingOf
is used to associate Entities with Things. Is there any reason why
such a function is not generalized to associate Objects with Things?

4.3 The derivation path (Section 3.3.1) is defined as
DerivationPaths=Entities⋅(Events⋅Activities⋅Events⋅Entities)+ I this
this can be more specific by identifying the kind of events, whether
they are generation or usage. This suggestion will require introducing
a new sets that are subsets of Events, namely Generations and Usages.

4.4 In the formulas defining the semantics of the relation sin Section
4.4, place hoder parameters are not specified.



On 25 February 2013 12:50, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker
<sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-630 (prov-sem-fpwd-review): PROV-SEM review for FPWD [Formal Semantics]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/630
>
> Raised by: James Cheney
> On product: Formal Semantics
>
> Hi,
>
> I have completed a cleanup pass on the semantics.  There are definitely still (mostly clearly-marked) areas where work is needed.
>
> Satya, Simon, Paolo, and Khalid had indicated willingness to review by Thursday, so that we can vote on release with other documents as part of the PR release cycle.
>
> Please respond to this issue with comments so that they are tracked.
>
> Review questions:
>
> 1.  Is the purpose of the document clear and consistent with the working group's consensus about the semantics?  If not, can you suggest clarifications or improvements?
>
> 2.  Are there minor issues that can be corrected easily prior to FPWD release?
>
> 3.  Are there blocking issues that must be addressed prior to release as a first public working draft?
>
> 4.  Are there non-blocking, but important issues that should be discussed and resolved for future editions? (no need to list TODOs already reflected in the document itself, unless there is disagreement about how to resolve them).
>
> --James
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 11:57:33 UTC