Re: PROV-ISSUE-410 (prov-primer-review): Feedback on Primer document [Primer]

Hi,

I just realized I only replied privately to Simon. Anyways, my misunderstanding, the prov-n version is there behind the hide/show 
buttons.

never mind, comment withdrawn :-)

-Paolo


On 7/4/12 4:28 PM, Miles, Simon wrote:
> Hi Paolo,
>
> Thanks, but to be clear, the PROV-N is not omitted from the primer, it is integrated into the main text. There are buttons to select whether you want your examples in Turtle or PROV-N or both, a la the OWL primer, as was agreed by the WG. I agree that the PROV-N is more appropriate than Turtle for some people, as Curt has raised before, and that is why it is in the main body of the text, not just an appendix. I know that the default view of the examples (before any buttons are clicked) is Turtle, and the WG could comment on whether that is appropriate - I did it that way just because PROV-O seems to have higher prominence for the WG than PROV-N, as reflected in the order we suggest documents are read.
>
> Am I misunderstanding your comment?
>
> thanks,
> Simon
>
> Dr Simon Miles
> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
>
> Transparent Provenance Derivation for User Decisions:
> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1400/
> ________________________________________
> From: Paolo Missier [Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk]
> Sent: 04 July 2012 15:54
> To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-410 (prov-primer-review): Feedback on Primer document   [Primer]
>
> Hi Simon, Yolanda
>
> the primer reads well, as we knew already.
> I have one more general comment and then specific notes, below.
>
> General comment: I know there was a group decision to omit the PROV-N version of the examples. I still believe it was not a good
> idea. None of the people I can send this primer to are interested in the turtle syntax, in fact some won't even be able to parse it.
> I understand it is the preferred format, but can someone remind me why PROV-N was omitted altogether?
>     Either way: I also don't understand why I am listed as author/contributor, as that was my only contribution.
>
> specific comments follow. I hope they help
>
> Regards,
>     -Paolo
>
> 2.3
> Activities /may/ generate ...?
> Activities /may/ also use...?
>
> should invalidation also be mentioned in this context?
>
> 2.4
> "the agent must be declared explicitly both as an agent and as an entity."
>     term "declared" may be open to interpretations. Consider:
> the agent can be viewed both as an agent and as an entity.
>
> 2.5
> "Roles are application specific, so PROV does not define any particular roles."
>
> this must be puzzling: if this is the case, why mention roles at all in this document?
> need to somehow explain that a compliant implementation is expected to recognize that there is a recognized concept of role,
> although it may not understand its specific values.
>
> 2.9
>
> these examples may be confusing:
>
> The same entity can evolve over time into different versions, e.g. a document that is repeatedly updated and has subsequent releases
> over time.
> The same entity can be copied or replicated, e.g. a document may be copied to several directories.
>
> because very similar scenarios were referred to as "revision" and "derivation" in 2.8  just above
>
> sec 3
> one may wonder whether stating that individuals be instances of specific classes is redundant when they are used as subjects of
> properties (i.e., in some cases where the domain of the properties is set, which is the case in PROV-O, but this is never stated).
>
>
> 3.4 and subsequent examples
>
> possibly point out that the RDF statements in these examples may include non-provenance statements, i.e., ex:chartgen foaf:name ...
> so in general one can mix provenance and non-provenance aspects of entities and agents.
>
>
> 3.10 title:  data -> records ?
>
>
> typo:
>
> sec 1 how to how
>
> On 6/14/12 4:24 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-410 (prov-primer-review): Feedback on Primer document  [Primer]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/410
>>
>> Raised by: Simon Miles
>> On product: Primer
>>
>> This is the issue to collect feedback on the primer document.
>>
>> Document to review is available from:
>>
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/Primer.html
>>
>> Questions:
>>    - Is it intuitive, readable, and an appropriate introduction to the other documents?
>>    - Do you judge it to be comprehensible to the range of communities that might use PROV?
>>    - Is the new way of presenting examples, with choice of format, helpful?
>>    - Are the examples up to date with regard to PROV-O and PROV-N?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Simon
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> -----------  ~oo~  --------------
> Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org
> School of Computing Science, Newcastle University,  UK
> http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier


-- 
-----------  ~oo~  --------------
Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org
School of Computing Science, Newcastle University,  UK
http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier

Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2012 16:43:49 UTC