> Hi DM Editors, > > Overall, the document is easier to read and conceptually accesible as > compared to previous versions (though the initial sections are bit > long and it takes time to reach the actual constructs). > > > Please note that, I am raising issues for WD5 that may partial overlap > with previously raised issues - but as we discussed earlier while > closing previous issues I am treating WD5 as new unconnected DM > version. > > --------------------- > My detailed comments: > Section 2.2: > 1. The definition of "derivation" states "transformation", "construction, "update" of an entity - but the example for derivation includes "transportation of a work of art from London to New York" - how is change of geographical location of art piece a transformation of the art piece? This has already been discussed It changes the situation of the work of art: from location="London" to location="NY" > 2.The definition of "collection" and "account" is not clear - > collection is defined as "structure to some constituents, which are > themselves entities" and account is defined as "contains bundles of > provenance descriptions". Since provenance descriptions are also > entities (from provenance of provenance) - then effectively account is > same as collection? > > This has been discussed many times. Provenance descriptions are not identifiable ... so difficult to make them entities. The mechanism to identify description is to bundle them up in a named account. > Section 3.1 and 3.2: > > 1. The examples describing generation of "tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215" is > not clear - the identifier refers to either the "second working draft" > (which requires approval by W3C) or a technical report (which can be > result of edit1, but is not a "second working draft" without W3C > approval? Hence, either two sets of ids should be used for two > distinct entities or they can only be generated by a single activity (as I believe is stated in constraints). Text was updated. In both cases, we are dealing with a document. It's the same resource, but we describe it differently. In the first case, it is edited by edit1, in the second, it is published by act2. Section4: 1. The statement "The fourth component consists of relations linking entities somehow referring to a same thing." is ambiguous - suggestion is to remove "somehow" OK > Section 4.1.3: > > 1. If the property "wasGeneratedBy" is by definition describing the > "production of new entity by an activity", then how can activity be > optional? The example "wasGeneratedBy(e,-,2001-10-26T21:32:52)" makes > little sense since we know that entity e is present hence it was > generated by some activity, but the provenance assertion with property > wasGeneratedBy is superfluous - the more informative assertion will be > wasGeneratedAt? It may not be specified, but it is existentially implied. This aspect is covered in prov-dm-constraints. > > This ties in with the issue of making activity mandatory for Usage in Section 4.1.4. > > Section 4.1.5 and 4.1.6: > 1. The term "trigger" has not defined before. Is "trigger" as type of entity or activity or agent? > The term trigger is defined there. It's an entity. > As defined for "wasStartedBy" and "wasEndedBy", the "trigger" is > responsible for (change in) activity, hence it satisfied the > definition of agent - is it just a specific type of agent? The definition of trigger does not mention responsibility. Agent implies responsibility. > Section 4.1.8: > > 1. Similar to the previous point, if an activity is responsible for > start of another activity, then it satisfies the requirement for being > an agent. The example uses "computer processes" a1 and a2 which are > "software agents" as defined in Section 4.2.1? But you would have to add wasAssociatedWith/wasAttributedTo link entity/activity to agent. > > Section 4.2.1: > 1. Include "legal" along with "social" since a company is a legal organization. > ok > Section 4.2.3: > > > 1. The property wasAssociatedWith is by definition describing the > assignment of responsibility to an agent for an activity", but if the > agent is optional, then what does the assertion > "wasAssociatedWith(ex:a, -) convey? If the agent is not known then > there is no need for the assertion describing an association between > activity and agent - under the open world assumption, there can always > be an agent associated with the activity. It's existentially implied. See part II. > > 2. Is the plan can be associated with an agent or an activity - in > case of a process specification (e.g. processor in taverna) or an > entity - iphone or building (for the last two they are independent of > an agent). > I am not sure what the question? > Section 4.3.2: > 1. If the agent in wasRevisionOf optional, then > > wasRevisionOf(tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215, tr:WD-prov-dm-20111018, -) is > same as wasDerivedFrom(tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215, > tr:WD-prov-dm-20111018), hence redundant. Either agent should be > mandatory or it should be dropped. wasRevisionOf(tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215, tr:WD-prov-dm-20111018, -) implies wasDerivedFrom(tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215, tr:WD-prov-dm-20111018) but not the converse. it's a sub-relation. > > Section 4.3.3: > 1. Similarly to above point, if quoterAgent and originalAgent are > optional, the > wasQuotedFrom(dm:bl-dagstuhl,wp:thoughts-from-the-dagstuhl-principles-of-provenance-workshop/, > - ) is same as > wasDerivedFrom(dm:bl-dagstuhl,wp:thoughts-from-the-dagstuhl-principles-of-provenance-workshop/,-), > hence redundant. Agent need to be mandatory for wasQuotedFrom. > Same > Section 4.3.5: > > 1. What is the difference between > tracedTo(dm:term-original-source,go:credit-where-credit-is-due.html) > and > hadOriginalSource(dm:term-original-source,go:credit-where-credit-is-due.html)? hadOriginalSource(dm:term-original-source,go:credit-where-credit-is-due.html) implies wasDerivedFrom(dm:term-original-source,go:credit-where-credit-is-due.html) which implies tracedTo(dm:term-original-source,go:credit-where-credit-is-due.html) > > 2. What is meant by "Derivation and association are particular cases > of traceability."? Association is between agent and activity, while > tracedTo is defined to be between two entities? Further, Section 4.3 > states that "subtypes of derivations Revision, Quotation, Original > Source, and Traceability" - so what is subtype of what? TODO: to check what traceability becomes with new defintion of agent!!! > > Section 4.4: > > 1. The statement "An entity is a specialization of another if they > refer to some common thing but the former is a more constrained entity > than the latter." is not clear - entity don't refer to (common) thing > - they are the "thing"? What does "constrained" mean? > > 2. "The common thing do not need to be identified." - then how is it > known that two entities are referring to the common thing if the > common thing itself is not known? It's not explicit, it's up to the asserter > > 3. The example specializationOf(ex:bbcNews2012-03-23, bbc:news/) is > not clear - how is a http redirect a specialization? What common > entity are they referring to? ???? redirect? it's a resource! > > Section 4.5: > Similar issues as above, I will raise it against the ongoing > specialization thread. Also, the example is incorrect > "alternateOf(tr:WD-prov-dm-20111018,tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215)" how is > the second working draft an alternate of the first WD - can we replace > WD2 with WD1 (maybe in an activity) and get the same result? Ability to sustitute is not the intent of alternate. > > Section MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "4.7.4.2" claiming to be 4.7.4.2: > 1. Location is not covered by either XSD or RDF specification (from Section 4.7.5)? > No, we leave the encoding of locations open, but they must be values. > Minor: > Section 4.2.4: > 1. Use "superior" instead of "responsible" for actedOnBehalfOf > > ----------- > > > > I believe the primary issue with WD5 are specialization and alternate > constructs and they need to be resolved before release. > > Thanks. > > Best, > Satya On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: PROV-ISSUE-331 (review-dm-wd5): issue to collect feedback on prov-dm wd5 [prov-dm] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/331 Raised by: Luc Moreau On product: prov-dm When sending feedback, please send it under this issue or individual new issues.