Re: PROV-ISSUE-438 (prov-n-post-f2f3-review ): Final review before last call vote [prov-n]

Hello Luc & others,

I have reviewed the PROV-N document over the weekend.
The document is well structured, and reads well. It is very usable as an
"advanced reference" when wanting to know more about one of the notations.
(which is exactly its purpose I suppose)

Question for reviewers: Can the document be published as Last Call working
draft?
Yes, I only have minor phrasing and consistency remarks below.

Minor remarks and typos:

- 2.1 Example 2

In the following expressions, the optional activity a along with the
> generation and usage identifiers g2 and u1:

Should be "In the following expressions, the optional activity a *is
specified* along with the generation and usage identifiers g2 and u1:"

- 2.2 EBNF Grammar

> Each expression non-terminal expression, i.e., entityExpression,
> activityExpression etc.,
>
 This sentence is a bit weird. Should the first "expression" be omitted?

- 2.5 Comments
typo: "cooments" (is fixed in latest editors draft I think)

- 3.1.4 - 3.1.8

> Even though the production usageExpression allows for expressions used(a2,
> -, -) and used(-; e2, -, -), these expressions are not valid in PROV-N,
> since at least one of id, entity, time, and attributes must be present.
>
a bit further, in 3.1.6 Start, this note is written as

> Note: Even though the production startExpression allows for expressions
> wasStartedBy(e2, -, -, -) and wasStartedBy(-; e2, -, -, -), these
> expressions are not valid in PROV-N, since at least one of id, trigger,
> starter, time, and attributes must be present.
>

This is a more general issue than just in this section. I would be
consistent here and add the "Note:" everywhere where this type of comment
is made.

Also, it seems that these notes do not always make sense.
For example, in 3.1.4, it says that at least one of id, entity, time, and
attributes must be present, but that used(-; e2, -, -) is not valid, even
though it contains an entity. (this was fixed in the latest editor's drfat
I saw)
The same issue occurs in 3.1.6 Start:
At least one of id, trigger, starter, time, and attributes must be present,
but wasStartedBy(e2, -, -, -) and wasStartedBy(-; e2, -, -, -) are invalid.
However, a starter or a trigger is present. Did you mean: at least one of
id, activity, time, and attributes must be present.?

The same happens with 3.1.7 End.
3.1.8 Invalidation has the correct remark: "at least one of id, activity,
time, and attributes must be present."
(but I would add the "Note:" here as well)


- 3.3.5 Influence

> Here id is the optional influence identifier, e2 is an entity identifier,
> e1 is the identifier for an ancestor entity that e2 depends on, and
> [ex:param="a"] is the optional set of attributes.
>

I think the use of "depends on" is a bit unlucky here, since it implies
that the influenced entity/activity/agent is directly dependent on the
influencing entity/activity/agent, while this is actually a lighter
relation than that I think.
Just rephrasing this to something like "e1 is the identifier for an
ancestor entity that e2 was influenced by" solves this.

>From here on everything looked fine to me :)

Congrats on a fine document!

 - Tom

2012/7/5 Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

> **
> Hi Stian and Tom,
>
> Thanks for volunteering for reading prov-n.
>
> Find the details below.
>
> In addition, could you look at the two sections recently added.
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-n.html#extensibility
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-n.html#media-type
>
> Thanks,
> Luc
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------  Subject: PROV-ISSUE-438
> (prov-n-post-f2f3-review ): Final review before last call vote [prov-n]  Resent-Date:
> Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:23:58 +0000  Resent-From: <public-prov-wg@w3.org><public-prov-wg@w3.org>  Date:
> Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:23:46 +0000  From: Provenance Working Group Issue
> Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>  Reply-To: Provenance
> Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org> <public-prov-wg@w3.org>  To:
> <public-prov-wg@w3.org> <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
>
> PROV-ISSUE-438 (prov-n-post-f2f3-review  ): Final review before last call vote   [prov-n]
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/438
>
> Raised by: Luc Moreau
> On product: prov-n
>
>
> This is the issue to collect feedback on prov-n document (version created after F2F3).
>
> Document to review is available from:
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-n-20120629/prov-n.html
>
> Question for reviewers: Can the document be published as Last Call working draft?
>
> Cheers,
> Luc
>
>
>
>
>