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

Hi Jun,

Thanks for your review. Some questions below.

On 07/03/2012 01:14 PM, Jun Zhao wrote:
> 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?
>

It should print OK, and it does for me here.
Which browser are you using?

> 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.
>

As W3C is the publisher of the document, it's not unreasonable to use 
attribution for this.
(The example already indicates the document is attributed to 
editors/authros).

Regarding your second point, I don't think it is possible. But I may be 
wrong.

> 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?

This was copied from prov-o.html ;-)

They are bundle because they contain provenance descriptions, written on 
a napkin/whiteboard, so they are not expressed directly with the 
constructor.

>
> 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.
>

Can you help us by identifying what you find complex. What's the first 
stumbling block for you (and the second ...)

> 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
>

Luc


>
>

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm

Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2012 09:42:33 UTC