Re: PROV-ISSUE-437 (prov-dm-post-f2f3-review): Final review before last call vote [prov-dm]

Hi Luc and Paolo,

Although I didn't sign up as a reviewer, I thought you could make do 
with some additional reviews.

On 28/06/2012 22:55, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-437 (prov-dm-post-f2f3-review): Final review before last call vote [prov-dm]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/437
>
> Raised by: Luc Moreau
> On product: prov-dm
>
>
> This is the issue to collect feedback on the prov-dm document (version created after F2F3)
>
> Document to review is available from:
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-dm-20120628/prov-dm.html
>
> Question for reviewers: Can the document be published as Last Call working draft?

Yes, as long as the construct of mention remains as being at risk.

Some minor comments are as included below:

Abstract:

- and, (5) --> ; and (6)
- I guess PROV-DM is PROV data model? It will be nice to define this 
abbreviation in the first place of mentioning. This also applies to the 
introduction section.
- From the abstract, it's not clear to me the relationship between this 
document and the other companion documents, although I know what this 
is. It will be nice to say clearly whether all of them are 
recommendations? Does PROV-DM refer to this document only or the three 
of them as a whole? It's a small thing, really.


Status of this document
- Is this the sixth public release?
- prov-o is not an OWL-RL ontology, but OWL-RL++.
- Do we have a PROV-XML? I am not aware of this, and just pointed it out 
that this is mentioned.

Section 2.1
- Before the table, when saying "in the core of PROV, all relations are 
binary", might be worthwhile pointing out where they are not binary?
- Can we say a few words about what the purpose of the "Name" column is?

2.1.1
- aspect -> aspects

2.2.1.3

Based on the narrative of this section it's still not clear to me why we 
need to identify an instance of relation. It's not technical, nor 
critical to the release for LC.

2.3
- rewording of "All components specify extended structures, whereas only 
the first three define core structures."? To me, these components are 
used to express the core and extended structures, not to define these 
structures.

5.1

- Figure 5 and many others (6, 7) do not fit into a page when printed. 
Is easy to scale them down for this purpose, if not losing the quality?

5.1.6
- have valid -> be valid

5.3.5

- The example of in this section does not quite help me: 1) I don't 
think W3C should be attributed to the DM document, but our editors; 
unless I understand attribution wrong; and 2) can we have an example to 
show that influence must be used, and cannot be replaced by any other 
concepts. In my opinion such an example is key to illustrate the purpose 
of this concept.

5.4.1

- I don't understand the "There may be other kinds of bundles not 
directly expressible by this constructor, such as napkin, whiteboard, 
etc." How are they being bundles?

5.5.3
- The narratives in this section are rather complex. But I am not going 
into details because it's marked as at risk at the moment.

5.6.

I like the new collection section, much lighter to read.

That's all! It's still not a short document, but it's much readable 
after these many rounds of revisions. So, well done!

-- Jun

Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2012 12:14:34 UTC