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

RE: PROV-ISSUE-613 (prov-aq-draft-review): Review paq for release as last call working draft [Accessing and Querying Provenance]

From: Miles, Simon <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 18:53:59 +0000
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AA3FA22D967B5C4E8948AADF719DA7C4016E108C@AM2PRD0311MB409.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Hello Paul, Graham,

Here's my review of the latest PAQ document.

In general, it seemed readable and precise.

In the intro bullet list of Section 1, "forward provenance" is mentioned for the first time. It would be good to give brief intuition about what this is, as it may not be obvious to the readers.

In Section 3, the term "consumer" is defined, but then "requester is used in later paragraphs, including the mechanism bullet list, and then "client" a bit further down. I was not clear if these were the same or related concepts.

Section 3.1 says "Provenance indicated in this way is not guaranteed to be authoritative". Isn't this true of all the access mechanisms, not just the one described in Section 3.1?

Section 4.1 does not say (as far as I could see) whether the RDF returned from dereferencing a service URI would include any triples for which the subject was not the service, i.e. any other RDF data. If it can, then I don't see it is guaranteed the client could unambiguously extract the information that described the appropriate query service (especially if the RDF describes more than one provenance query service). Shouldn't there be some restriction on what the RDF contains?

The new section, Section 5, seemed fine to me.

Typos:
 - Section 1.1, Constrained resource definition: "it's" -> "its"
 - I don't know why the last sentence of Section 1.3 or the Dereferences column for Pingback-URI are in parentheses.
 - First sentence of last paragraph of Section 2, there seems to be too much italics.
 - Section 4, paragraph 3, final sentence has too many "not described here"s.

Review questions:
 - Can this be released as a last call working draft? YES
 - Is the name provenance access and query appropriate for the document? YES
 - If not, where are the blocking issues? NONE
 - If yes, are there other issues to work on? NO

thanks,
Simon

Dr Simon Miles
Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166

Transparent Provenance Derivation for User Decisions:
http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1400/

________________________________________
From: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker [sysbot+tracker@w3.org]
Sent: 10 January 2013 14:56
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Subject: PROV-ISSUE-613 (prov-aq-draft-review): Review paq for release as last call working draft [Accessing and Querying Provenance]

PROV-ISSUE-613 (prov-aq-draft-review): Review paq for release as last call working draft [Accessing and Querying Provenance]

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/613

Raised by: Paul Groth
On product: Accessing and Querying Provenance

Reviewing

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/b3f397c7b15c/paq/prov-aq.html





Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2013 18:54:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:27 UTC