RE: Requirements Document ready for review

Great job summarizing the requirements and providing motivational use cases.. Some comments below (I couldn't login to the wiki using my w3c account and add these to the discussion page):

Use case 1.

*         The use case does not seem to cover requirements

o    "C-Vers-UR 2b: Determine and record when content was changed" and "C-Entail-UR 8: Identify the date and time of the derivation": This can be fixed by adding a clause on needing to know when the image was changed, or for using temporal ordering to find out whether an image is a source image or modified one.

o    "M-Pub-UR4: Users need to identify who published the provenance information": The "seal" that the user clicks on can also show where the provenance for the content comes from. Motivating visualization of provenance through graphs may also be appropriate here.

o    "U-Under-UR4: Enable users to approach the provenance graph at different levels of detail,": We can have different details of provenance presented to BlogAgg experts and public users.

Use case 2.

*         Improve intro.

*         Though the scenario is apt, the tie-ins between the use case and the requirements are less clear than in the previous use case. Rather than giving the context and leaving the requirement to interpretation, they should be succinctly and explicitly stated in the use case as before. Many of the requirements only seem to vaguely emerge from the use case, and some are clearly absent. Is this use case trying to cover more requirements than it should?

Use case 3.

*         Design Contract seems a more appropriate title than (Software) Engineering Contract

*         The following requirements can be covered better

o     "C-JUST-UR3: The justification should be preserved so that the actual long-term behavior of a product, or effects of a policy can be compared with predictions" can be strengthened by mentioning a duration for which the provenance data should be stored (e.g. Statutes of Limitations for which contract can be enforced).

o    "M-Acc-UR 3: query a single source or federation of sources" can be motivated as part of combining the design from multiple sites when designing a new site. The provenance for multiple sites and their contracts need to have federated access.

o    "M-Pub-UR3: Choose a representation format to publish provenance information" can be introduced by stating that the proof is shared with Customer's Inc. in a format with both parties.

o    "Identify agents (e.g., humans and software components) responsible for conclusion derivation"

o

Requirements:Content

*         Object: We may also want to identify a particular version of the artifact. E.g. contract number is insufficient. Are "services" considered as artifacts or processes?

*         Process: The machine learning example repeatedly referred to is not actually mentioned in the Biomedical use case.
Requirements:Management

*         Provenance representation language: should we also acknowledge that multiple languages must be able to coexist and interoperate?
Requirements:Use

*         Are we mentioning the need for provenance specific query constructs/functions?


Some Typos
"or the usage restrictions are on content" -> "or the usage restrictions on content"
"It thus this by aggregating" -> "It does this by aggregating"
"information is is not" -> "information is not"
"thousands to hundred of thousands a sites" -> "thousands to hundreds of thousands of sites"
"content can repurposed" -> "content can be repurposed"
"anonmyzation" -> "anonymization"
"questionaire" -> "questionnaire"
"is faulty due to proper quality control" -> "is faulty due to improper quality control"
"many kinds of entity" -> "many kinds of entities"
"documentatation" -> "documentation"
"argumentation" -> "arguments"
"whether the license the panda" -> "what license the panda"
Consistently use UK or US spellings (e.g. artifact vs. artefact, summarised)

--Yogesh

__________________________________________________________________
Yogesh Simmhan, Ph.D.  | PostDoc Researcher | eScience Group<http://research.microsoft.com/research/eScience/> | Microsoft Research<http://research.microsoft.com/>
yoges@microsoft.com<mailto:yoges@microsoft.com>  |  research.microsoft.com/~yoges<http://research.microsoft.com/~yoges>
m (540) 449 4770  |  o,f (425) 538 6245  |  1100 Glendon Ave, PH1/2206, Los Angeles CA

From: public-xg-prov-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-prov-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Paul Groth
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 2:56 AM
To: public-xg-prov@w3.org
Subject: Requirements Document ready for review

Hi All,

The requirements document is ready to be reviewed. It's on the wiki at http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Requirements_Clean . We appreciate any comments you can provide. The comment period wraps up March 30, 2010.

Thanks,
Paul
--
Dr. Paul Groth (pgroth@few.vu.nl<mailto:pgroth@few.vu.nl>)
http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth
Postdoc
Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group
Artificial Intelligence Section
Department of Computer Science
VU University Amsterdam