- From: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 06:25:55 -0800
- To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Yes please close. On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > Hi Eric, > > Paolo and I have made changes following your feedback. > Our responses can be found below. > > This now completes WD4. Notes have been inserted in the document, > which we will tackle as part of WD5. > > We are proposing to close ISSUE-274. Let us know if this is fine with you. > Regards, > Luc > > > >> My apologies for being so late on providing reviewer feedback. >> >> Overall I enjoyed the PROV-DM document, I felt that the authors have >> done an incredible job helping readers easily relate concepts in the >> data model. Here are my comments and suggestions. >> >> Eric >> >> ~~~ >> >> Introduction >> >> I agreed with the discussion thread on changes to the introduction >> that introduced the purpose of the data model to describe provenance >> in natural language. >> >> Section 2.3 – I have mixed feelings about bringing out these concepts, >> they don’t tie into the example and collections isn’t mentioned again >> until section 5.8. While they are important perhaps could this >> section be left out of section 2? > > This comment needs to be re-considered later. At this stage, I would > prefer to keep these concepts there, until the model is completely > finalized. We could reassess then. > > >> >> Section 3 Example >> >> Prior to the auditor example could an ultra simple example debuting an >> agent, process and entity something like “w3:Consortium publishes a >> technical report”? > > Added sentence, at the beginning of section 3. > > >> >> I’m wondering if the detailed auditor provenance example could be >> introduced first in a human readable story format prior to the >> bulleted list that highlights the specific provenance related >> concepts. > > Added descriptions in section 3.1 and 3.2. > >> >> In the example use of the somewhat cryptic working draft names >> “tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215” “tr:WD-prov-dm-20111018” is a bit difficult >> to following because I found myself mentally parsing the document >> names to keep track of the different documents. While this might be >> less realistic something like model-rev1.html, model-rev2.html might >> illustrate the same ideas. > > The whole point was to use real identifiers, to be close to "scruffy > provenance". > > >> >> I am wondering if it might be more intuitive if the provenance graphic >> illustration preceeded the PROV-ASN notation. It provides a graphic >> that a person can study as they study the PROV-DM assertions in >> PROV-ASN notation. > > It was difficult to reorganize, since we needed to introduce the > various concepts. So, instead, a sentence introduces the graphical > > notation. > >> >> The graphic illustration seems to capture all the examples of >> provenance from the bulleted list while the PROV-DM assertions in >> PROV-ASN seem to be either incomplete (there isn’t a one to one >> correspondence to follow from the example to the PROV-DM assertions. > > I am not sure I understand. > Need to get Eric to point to concrete differences. > > >> >> 3.2 Great job bringing in the concept of viewing other perspectives >> on the same example. >> >> 4.2 Activity names in the table need updating. >> > > which names in the table? > > >> 4.3.3.5 prov:location – Could we change the wording slightly to say >> that Location is loosely based on an ISO 19112 but can also refer to >> non-geographic places such as a directory or row/column? The specific >> definition from ISO19112 is location: >> identifiable geographic place EXAMPLE “Eiffel Tower”, “Madrid”, >> “California”” >> > > Updated location definition to allow for non-geographic places. > > > > On 23/02/2012 09:32, Eric Stephan wrote: >> >> My apologies for being so late on providing reviewer feedback. >> >> Overall I enjoyed the PROV-DM document, I felt that the authors have >> done an incredible job helping readers easily relate concepts in the >> data model. Here are my comments and suggestions. >> >> Eric >> >> ~~~ >> >> Introduction >> >> I agreed with the discussion thread on changes to the introduction >> that introduced the purpose of the data model to describe provenance >> in natural language. >> >> Section 2.3 – I have mixed feelings about bringing out these concepts, >> they don’t tie into the example and collections isn’t mentioned again >> until section 5.8. While they are important perhaps could this >> section be left out of section 2? >> >> Section 3 Example >> >> Prior to the auditor example could an ultra simple example debuting an >> agent, process and entity something like “w3:Consortium publishes a >> technical report”? >> >> I’m wondering if the detailed auditor provenance example could be >> introduced first in a human readable story format prior to the >> bulleted list that highlights the specific provenance related >> concepts. >> >> In the example use of the somewhat cryptic working draft names >> “tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215” “tr:WD-prov-dm-20111018” is a bit difficult >> to following because I found myself mentally parsing the document >> names to keep track of the different documents. While this might be >> less realistic something like model-rev1.html, model-rev2.html might >> illustrate the same ideas. >> >> I am wondering if it might be more intuitive if the provenance graphic >> illustration preceeded the PROV-ASN notation. It provides a graphic >> that a person can study as they study the PROV-DM assertions in >> PROV-ASN notation. >> >> The graphic illustration seems to capture all the examples of >> provenance from the bulleted list while the PROV-DM assertions in >> PROV-ASN seem to be either incomplete (there isn’t a one to one >> correspondence to follow from the example to the PROV-DM assertions. >> >> 3.2 Great job bringing in the concept of viewing other perspectives >> on the same example. >> >> 4.2 Activity names in the table need updating. >> >> 4.3.3.5 prov:location – Could we change the wording slightly to say >> that Location is loosely based on an ISO 19112 but can also refer to >> non-geographic places such as a directory or row/column? The specific >> definition from ISO19112 is location: >> identifiable geographic place EXAMPLE “Eiffel Tower”, “Madrid”, >> “California”” >> >> > >
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 14:26:28 UTC