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

Hi Tom,

I read the latest version of the Dictionary document today, and here
are few comments that you might want to consider.

Regards, khalid


- I found the following sentence hard to follow "For the purpose of
provenance, a dictionary entity is viewed as a snapshot of a
dictionary data structure, following a sequence of state-changing
insertion and removal operations."

- Regarding prov:EmptyDictionary, I think there is anew constraint
that can be added to state that an entity that is both a doctionary
and an empty collection is an empty dictionary.

- In the definition of Dictionary Insertion in Section 2.2, it is
stated that "each key_i is expected to be unique for the
key-entity-set". I think that condition is necessary but not
sufficient. the key i should be unique considering the key-entity-set
specified in the insertion as well as the keys that are already used
within the dictionary D1.

- In section 2.2, you state that "Note that insertion is considered to
be complete. This means that we assume that no unknown keys were
inserted in or removed from a dictionary after an insertion." It is
not the insertion that is complete, but the key-entity-set specified
by the derivedByInsertion assertion. This same observation applies to
removal.

- I could not follow the following sentence: "In particular, no
assumptions are needed regarding the mutability of a data structure
that is subject to updates."

- There a full stop that is missing after the first paragraph in Section 4.

- Regarding Section 4, I found it a bit too long, and of different
style, compared with other sections, for example Section 5. This is a
minor comment that you may ignore, but if there is time, one would
have the details of all terms as an apendix, and focus on presenting
teh main constructs in Section 4.

On 16 January 2013 08:17, Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Our apologies that this mail did not go out sooner. We had some trouble with
> our university mailing server, and couldn't send any mails anymore from our
> approved email addresses.
> I sent an email to the list from another address on Friday, but apparently
> it didn't get through.
>
> PROV-DICTIONARY is now ready for internal review.
> This document is on the NOTE track, and we'd like to publish a working draft
> by the time the RECs go to PR.
>
> The latest editor's draft is here:
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dictionary/prov-dictionary.html#dictionary-xml-schema
>
> The following people volunteered for reviewing the document: Paolo, Stian,
> James (maybe), Luc, and Paul, but others are also welcome to review of
> course.
> If you only have bandwidth to review part of the document (e.g. only the
> ontology section), that could be useful as well.
>
> Questions for reviewers
> - Is the notation of Dictionary concepts clear & acceptable for you? (in
> PROV-N, PROV-O and/or PROV-XML)
> - 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?
> - Is the name PROV-DICTIONARY appropriate for the document?
> - Can this be released as a first public working draft?
> - If not, where are the blocking issues?
> - If yes, are there other issues to work on?
>
> In your review please include ISSUE-614
>
> Due to the delay in sending this notification, I suggest we allow a little
> more time to review the document.
> We propose the due date for review to be on Wednesday the 23rd, so that we
> can vote on the revised document on the 24th.
>
> Thanks in advance to all the reviewers.
>
> Regards,
> Tom & Sam

Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 16:23:25 UTC