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

Hi Paul, thanks for your review and suggestions.

I've responded inline 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"
>
> Incorporated. Does it need to contain more information than this?


> - 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
>
> This was legacy. I rephrased it to:

> "This document provides a mechanism to assert the provenance for these
> types of data structures, in the most general way, as a collection of
> key-value pairs, modified through insertions and deletions. Any more
> specialized structures can be modeled to some extent in terms of these
> key-value pairs. Here, we will discuss the provenance of dictionaries
> structured in terms of key-value pairs. However, how this key-value pair
> structure is translated to more specialized data structures, is beyond the
> scope of this document."
>
Is this acceptable to you?


> - If possible, I would like to see a small example of the provenance of a
> dictionary
>
> That would be nice, but it'll have to wait until we publish the next draft
due to time constraints.

- Tom