Re: prov-links ready for review

On 28/03/2013 10:55, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I made an editorial pass over prov-links.
>
> The staged version, in its final NOTE form, is available from:
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/links/releases/NOTE-prov-links-20130430/Overview.html 
>
>
> It is now ready for internal review. We will assign reviewers today during the
> call.
Reviewing at the above link (retrieved 20130328 at about 14:45 UK time)

...

Section 1, para 2:

"... therefore, provenance of provenance is itself a critical aspect of an 
information infrastructure such as the Web."

This seems to me like a rather strong claim.  (The web got on quite well so far 
without it ;) )

Suggest something like: "... therefore, provenance of provenance is itself an 
important aspect of establishing trust in an information infrastructure such as 
the Web."

...

Section 1, para 2:

"These blobs of provenance descriptions are independent of each other, ..." 
seems to me a strange thing to say, as I don't think total independence as 
implied is intended or particularly useful. Suggest: "These blobs of provenance 
descriptions stand independently of each other, ..."

...

Section 5

I'm not understanding the motivation or purpose of the constraint

   IF mentionOf(e, e1, b1) and mentionOf(e, e2, b2), THEN e1=e2 and b1=b2.

e.g. It seems to me that if bundle b1 has specializationOf(e1, e2) or 
mentionOf(e1, e2, b2) then it would make sense for e to be a specialization of 
distinct entities e1 and e2.

Rather than just e1 = e2, is it not sufficient to allow:

   specializationOf(e1,e2) OR specializationOf(e2,e1) OR e1 = e2

?

...

I think this document is fine for release as a NOTE, but as a parting shot I'll 
reiterate that I'm not seeing what is said by mentionOf(e1, e2, b) that would 
not be covered by separate statements:

    specializationOf(e1, e2)
    prov:has_provenance(e2, b)

#g
--

Received on Thursday, 28 March 2013 15:37:19 UTC