> Hello,
>
> Below, you can find my post-F2F3 review of this document. I don't know
> if my concerns already came up in other reviews. If they did and are
> resolved, they can be ignored.
>
> Q: Reviewer question: Can the document be published as Last Call
> working draft? A: Yes, certainly, provided that two concerns are
> addressed (see below) regarding the clarity of the primary source, and
> the OPTIONAL attribute of bundle in the Mention construct.
>
> Overall, I think the document reads very well. Thanks to the new
> structure, and the resolutions at F2F3 of dropping some stuff
> (e.g. dictionaries), it seems like a very coherent and clear document,
> in the final stage of writing.
>
> I have two concerns (non-blocking, but I would like to know the
> group's opinion on them): - 5.2.4 Primary Source:
>
> A primary source ◊ for a topic refers to something produced by
> some agent with direct experience and knowledge about the topic,
> at the time of the topic's study, without benefit from hindsight.
>
>
> In my opinion, this definition should be rephrased or clarified some
> more.I find it very confusing that the word "topic" pops up here,
> whereas it isn't mentioned anywhere else in the document. Couldn't
> this definition be phrased using entity? Perhaps a (rough) proposal:
>
> A primary source for an entity is a derivation that refers to an
> entity attributed to some agent with direct experience and
> knowledge about this thing, without benefit from hindsight.
>
The group voted for this definition at F2F3 ....
>
>
> - 5.5.3 Mention
>
> bundle: an optional identifier (b) of a bundle that contains a
> description of supra and further constitutes one additional aspect
> presented by infra.
>
>
> Perhaps this came up before, but I don't see why bundle would be
> optional. Then why would one use this construct instead of a regular
> specialization? If an example exists, I think it should be written
> here. If no example exists, I suggest making the bundle attribute
> mandatory. If an external LC reviewer does see (and motivate) the need
> for this attribute to be optional, we can change it back.
Sorry, this was a mistake. The bundle is mandatory in a Mention construct
>
>
> Minor remarks and typo's:
>
> - 2.1.1 Entity and activity
>
> In PROV, things we want to describe the provenance of are called
> entities and have some fixed aspect.
>
> Typo aspect"s", and perhaps rephrase this to the actual phrasing we
> use in the rest of the document. I think it's clearer
Done.
>
> - 2.1.2 Derivation
>
> If an artifact was used by an activity that also generated a new
> artifact, it does not always follow that the second artifact was
> derived from the first.
>
> Why are we talking about artifacts instead of entities here? ->
> confusing
It is being used as a normal English term without any technical connotation.
>
> - 2.2.1 Mechanisms to Define Extended Structures
>
> A software agent is running software.
>
> This is a bit rough. (a computer also runs software) Perhaps: A
> software agent is a digital agent whose actions are the result of the
> execution of a piece of software.
'running software' means 'software that runs'.
>
> - 2.2.1.4 Further Relations
>
> Finally, PROV-DM supports further relations that are not subtypes
> or expanded versions of existing relations.
>
> Such as?
(such as specialization, alternate)
>
> - 2.2.3 Collections
>
> Many different types of collections exist, such as a sets,
>
> typo: remove the "a"
done
>
> - 3. The Provenance Notation
>
> To further disambiguate expressions that contains an optional
> identifier,
>
> typo: contains -> minus s
Done
>
> - 5.1.4 Usage
>
> entity: an optional identifier (e) for the entity being used;
>
> An example as in the previous section (example 19) on generation with
> the optional entity left out would be great.
TODO?
>
> - 5.1.7 End Copy-paste error: (same as start)
>
> ender: an optional identifier (a1) for the activity that generated
> the (possibly unspecified) entity (e);
TOM: I don't see what the error is.
>
>
> - 5.3 Component 3: Agents, Responsibility, and Influence
>
> The second component of PROV-DM,
>
> typo: should be the third component
Fixed
>
> extended structures comprise and UML association classes
>
> typo: lose the "and"
Fixed.
>
> It would maybe be nice to mention something about "scruffy"or
> "imprecise" or "incomplete" provenance here, and mention that the use
> of influencedBy is discouraged except for this kind of provenance,
> when there are no other options.
As a group, we decided not to talk about "scruffy" provenance.
However section 5.3.5 has the following statement:
" It is recommended to adopt these more specific relations when writing provenance descriptions. It is anticipated that the Influence relation may be useful to express queries over provenance information."
>
> - 5.3.2 Attribution
>
> agent: the identifier (ag) of the agent whom the entity is
> ascribed to,
>
> Maybe use "attributed to" instead of "ascribed to" to keep consistency
No change here.
>
> - 5.5 Component 5: Alternate Entities
>
> The fifth component of PROV-DM is concerned with relations
> specialization and alternate between entities.
>
> Why isn't "mention" mentioned?
Fixed
>
> - 5.5.3 Mention
>
> The following notion is a relation between two entities with
> regard to a bundle.
>
> I would add here: "It is a special case of specialization."
Done.
>
>
> Thanks for writing/editing a very nice document! I think we can be
> proud of this one.
>
> - Tom
>
>
> 2012/6/28 Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker
>
>
> 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?
>
> Cheers, Luc
>
>
>
>
>