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

Re: PROV-DICTIONARY internal review for first public working draft (ISSUE-614)

From: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:43:11 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRr=wzyKfaN6MikF8uAXWvHWqju60uGro6P_U9WJ2VcPDQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Tom, Sam:

Here's my review of PROV-Dictionary. Sorry for the delay.

- Is the notation of Dictionary concepts clear & acceptable for you?

- Are the constraints acceptable, or are they too loose/too strict?
-- In particular, can the constraint "IF derivedByRemovalFrom(d2, d1,
{"k1"}) THEN hadDictionaryMember(d1, e1, "k1") " be dropped, or do you
strongly support it?

It can be dropped and I'm fine with the rest of the constraints.

- Is the name PROV-DICTIONARY appropriate for the document?

- Can this be released as a first public working draft?
Yes, as long as the abstract is updated (see below)

Some brief comments:

- The abstract needs to be expanded. Please say what the document is about.
Suggestion: "This document describes extensions to PROV to facilitate the
modelling of provenance for dictionary data structures"

- I don't understand this sentence: "The specification of such specialized
structures in terms of key-value pairs is out of the scope of this
document.", you just got through talking about maps… it seems out of place
or not complete

- If possible, I would like to see a small example of the provenance of a
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 12:43:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:28 UTC