--- a/model/comments/issue-274-daniel.txt Wed Feb 29 06:37:26 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/comments/issue-274-daniel.txt Wed Feb 29 07:24:20 2012 +0100
@@ -28,55 +28,109 @@
> ***
>
> - Button "Hide ASN" does actually do anything?
+
+Removed
+
>
> 2.3
> - AccountEntity? I thought it was Bundle, but ok.
+
+No name had been agreed.
+
>
> -Three types of agents are recognized by PROV-DM because they are commonly
> encountered in applications making data and documents available on the Web:
> persons, software agents, and organizations.--> Wasn't software supposed to
> be system/computingSystem?
+
+No consensus was reached. Document mentions both
+ People and Human
+So need to be consistent
+
+TODO
+
>
> 2.5: there are arrows missing: Activity wasStartedBy Activity. Entity:
> alternateOf, specializationOf
+
+It is an overview, intentionally, simplifying the presentation,
+including not showing some edges.
+With the component-based presentation, further small diagrams will be produced.
+
+TODO
+
+
>
> 3.1: It would be helpful to see the properties labelled in the figure.
>
+
+Figures to be drawn by hand. Note added.
+
+
> 3.2: Here I would suggest to simplify the figure (leave just 2 authors (as
> in the example), or the editors), and label the edges as well.
+
+Same.
+
>
> 3.3: Ah finally a reference to metadata provenance :) This is what Kai and
> some of the DC community were asking for.
+
+Nothing to do.
>
> 4.1.2: "In contrast, an activity is something that happens, unfolds or
> develops through time, but is typically not identifiable by the
> characteristics it exhibits at any point during its duration". What about
> the activity's ID. Why isn't that enough to characterize the activity
> enough to become an entity or an agent?
+
+
+This is ISSUE-94, which is now closed.
+
>
> 4.2: wasStartedBy between activities is missing in the table. In fact I
> haven't seen wasStartedBy between activities in the doc. It certainly was
> an overloaded property in the WD4. Has it been removed?
+
+This is proposed to be reorganized for WD5.
+
+
>
> 4.2.1.2:There is a note that refers to Usage record's id. It should be just
> usage.
+
+Text of notes has not been updated.
+Hopefully, this note can be removed soon.
+
>
> 4.2.3.2: I got the feeling from discussions on the mailing list that we
> were going to reduce one of the derivation types (Imprecise-1 derivation).
> Am I wrong?
+
+Yes, proposal to come for WD5.
+
>
> 4.3.3.5: I don't understand how a path in a computer or a row and a column
> are a geographic place.
+
+Updated definition to allow for non-geographic places.
+
>
> 5.5: Example missing
>
> 5.7: Example missing.
+
+Added to the notes, these sections need rewriting.
+
>
> 5.8: If collections are just a kind of entity and they have their custom
> relationships (afterInsertion, afterRemoval), would it make sense to
> separate them from the core? (In a profile, best practice or example of
> extensibility)
>
+
+In WD5, they will constitute one of the components.
+
> *********
> - One question that came into my mind when reading the model: How would I
> model a usage that lasted for 20 min? (Right now we only have the beggining
@@ -84,6 +138,12 @@
> for 20 mins and the other one instantly, and I want to model this with DM.
> Unless I create 2 activities (which is not what happened) I don't see how.
>
+
+To represent something that happens, then one needs to use an activity, to
+which one can attach duration.
+
+
+
> Thanks,
> Daniel
>
--- a/model/comments/issue-274-eric.txt Wed Feb 29 06:37:26 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/comments/issue-274-eric.txt Wed Feb 29 07:24:20 2012 +0100
@@ -58,3 +58,5 @@
> definition from ISO19112 is location:
> identifiable geographic place EXAMPLE “Eiffel Tower”, “Madrid”, “California””
>
+
+Updated location definition to allow for non-geographic places.
--- a/model/comments/issue-274-khalid.txt Wed Feb 29 06:37:26 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/comments/issue-274-khalid.txt Wed Feb 29 07:24:20 2012 +0100
@@ -16,19 +16,34 @@
> couldn’t find better titles though. I thought of “core prov-dm” for
> part-1, and “extended prov-dm” for part 2, but that is not really what
> the two parts are about.
+
+GK also made a suggestion for part 2: prov-algebra.
+This is to be considered.
+
>
> - ASN is used in part-1, but not introduced. A brief definition when it
> is used for the first time, for example, may be good.
+
+Yes, a short summary needs to be added.
+TODO.
+
>
> - The first paragraph in Section 2.1, it is said that “provenance of
> Entities, that is of things in the world”. I am not sure that is the
> case, provenance of entities is not the same as provenance of things.
+
+But, this is compatible with our definition: "Entities are things in the world one wants to provide provenance for."
>
> - In the same section 2.1, it is said that “The definition of agent
> intentionally stays away from using concepts such as enabling, causing,
> *initiating*, affecting…”. Isn’t wasStartedBy, which is defined in
> Section 4.2.2.2 is used to specify that an agent initiated the execution
> of an activity?
+
+Yes, but the definition of agent is independent of these terms.
+That's the key thing.
+Of course, relations will link agents in various ways.
+
>
> - The examples of generation and usage that are given in Section 2.2 are
> complicated. Although they are to give a precise definition of what
@@ -36,20 +51,38 @@
> generation are the *completed* creation of a file by a program”. I think
> that at the stage it would be less confusing for the reader to simply
> know that the creation of a file is an example of generation.
+
+I would prefer keeping 'completed' to avoid any confusion.
+
>
> - In Section 2.3, plan is used in the text without being introduced before.
+
+There must always be a first time for every thing ;-)
+That's the point of this section to introduce them, before using them in 2.4/2.5
+
>
> - I have the impression that the diagram presented in Section 2.5 would
> be more useful if placed at the beginning of Section 2. Also, this
> diagram was not clear, i.e., the quality of the image is bad, when I
> printed it out on paper.
+
+TODO: check printed quality.
+
+TODO: to consider where to move it.
+
>
> - The title of Section 3.2 “The Authors View” is confusing. A reader
> that is quickly browsing the document may think that this section gives
> the views of the prov-dm authors about the prov-dm document :-)
+
+No action.
+
>
> - In Section 4, first paragraph: “We revisit each concept *introduction*
> in Section 2” -> introduced
+
+done
+
>
> - In the definition of Entity in Section 4.1.1: “id: an identifier
> identifying an entity” -> “id: an entity identifier”.
@@ -58,6 +91,9 @@
> set of attribute-value pairs *representing this entity’s situation in
> the world*” -> characterizing the thing that the entity represents. Or
> something in these lines.
+
+I don't think so, we want to stay away from 'characterizing'
+
>
> - In the same section, the constraint that the set of Activities and
> Entities are disjoint is presented, later on in Section 4.1.2, this
@@ -68,12 +104,22 @@
> characteristics that makes it identifiable”. I would therefore suggests
> moving the discussion about the above constraint, i.e., that entities
> and activities are disjoint to the constraint document.
+
+As a compromise, maybe keep the statement on disjointness.
+But move explanation to part II.
+
+Paolo?
+
>
> - In Section 4.2.1.1 Generation, it is said that “While each of the
> components activity, time, and attributes is Optional, at least one of
> them must be present”. I wonder if there is a straightforward way to
> encode this constraints in the serializations of prov-dm, in particular
> prov-o.
+
+This is a prov-o issue. Not all constraint need to be implemented in
+an ontology/schema. This applies equally to xml schema.
+
>
> - In Section 4.2.3.1 Responsibility Chain, in the definition of
> actedOnBehalfOf, it is specified that activity can be optional. We need
@@ -81,6 +127,10 @@
> actedOnBehalfOf when activity is not given as an argument, that is means
> that a given agent ag1 acts on behalf of another agent ag2 in all the
> activities that ag1 is involved in?
+
+TODO.
+
+
>
> - Section 4.2.3.2 presents derivation. If the objective is to simplify
> part-1, then this section needs serious simplifications :-) In
@@ -91,10 +141,19 @@
> traceability which is presented later on 5, is a first class relation,
> and therefore should be introduced when speaking about entity-entity
> relations in Section 4.2.3.
+
+Simplification of derivation is for WD5.
+
+Traceability is there just for the purpose of inference.
+This will be reorganized as part of WD5 component structure.
+
>
> - Section 4.2.3.3 on Alternate and Specialization can be moved to
> part-2, since to grasp these relations one needs to have more details
> about what entity represents, which are given in part-2.
+
+I don't think so, they should stay here. The examples are simple enough.
+
>
> - Section 4.2 Relation, I think the order in which the subsections of
> this section are presented should be re-thinked. In particular, I have
@@ -102,9 +161,17 @@
> entity-entity relations, which are probably the most important relations
> in provenance, before getting to know what are the agent-activity and
> agent-agent relations.
+
+A component structure will be adopted in WD5.
+
>
> - The table presented in Section 4.2 need some text that explains to the
> reader how it can be read.
+
+The table and its introduction will be revisited as part of WD5.
+
>
> Hope these comments will be of help, khalid
+
+Thanks!
>
--- a/model/comments/issue-274-tim.txt Wed Feb 29 06:37:26 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/comments/issue-274-tim.txt Wed Feb 29 07:24:20 2012 +0100
@@ -107,6 +107,9 @@
> "An agent is a type of entity that can be associated to an activity, to indicate that it bears some form of responsibility for the activity taking place."
> "An agent is a type of entity that bears some form of responsibility for an activity taking place."
>
+
+Yes, implemented.
+
>
> perhaps add the person invoking the grammar checker to the following example (to illustrate the levels of responsibility):
> "Software for checking the use of grammar in a document may be defined as an agent of a document preparation activity, and at the same time one can describe its provenance, including for instance the vendor and the version history."
--- a/model/glossary.html Wed Feb 29 06:37:26 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/glossary.html Wed Feb 29 07:24:20 2012 +0100
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@
<span class="glossary" id="glossary-plan">
-A <dfn id="concept-plan">plan</dfn> is an entity that represent a set of
+A <dfn id="concept-plan">plan</dfn> is an entity that represents a set of
actions or steps intended by one or more agents to achieve some goals.
</span>
--- a/model/glossary.js Wed Feb 29 06:37:26 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/glossary.js Wed Feb 29 07:24:20 2012 +0100
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@
' ' +
' ' +
'<span class="glossary" id="glossary-plan"> ' +
-'A <dfn id="concept-plan">plan</dfn> is an entity that represent a set of ' +
+'A <dfn id="concept-plan">plan</dfn> is an entity that represents a set of ' +
'actions or steps intended by one or more agents to achieve some goals. ' +
'</span> ' +
' ' +
--- a/model/prov-dm.html Wed Feb 29 06:37:26 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/prov-dm.html Wed Feb 29 07:24:20 2012 +0100
@@ -234,7 +234,7 @@
-<div class="buttonpanel">
+<!-- <div class="buttonpanel">
<form action="#"><p>
<input id="hide-asn" onclick="set_display_by_class('div','withAsn','none');set_display_by_class('span','withAsn','none'); set_display_by_id('hide-asn','none'); set_display_by_id('show-asn','');" type="button"
value="Hide ASN" />
@@ -243,7 +243,7 @@
</p>
</form>
</div>
-
+-->
@@ -592,6 +592,8 @@
<div class="note">
TODO: short text required to explain the overview diagram
+<p>I have the impression that the diagram presented in Section 2.5 would
+ > be more useful if placed at the beginning of Section 2 [KB]
</div>
@@ -706,6 +708,7 @@
<div class='note'>
Illustration to be hand crafted instead of being generated automatically. It's important to adopt a common style for all illustrations across all PROV documents.
+<p>CG: It would be helpful to see the properties labelled in the figure.
</div>
@@ -772,6 +775,13 @@
<figcaption id="prov-tech-report">Provenance of a Tech Report (b)</figcaption>
</figure>
</div>
+
+<div class='note'>
+Illustration to be hand crafted instead of being generated automatically. It's important to adopt a common style for all illustrations across all PROV documents.
+<p>CG: It would be helpful to see the properties labelled in the figure.
+<p> simplify the figure (leave just 2 authors (as in the example), or the editors), and label the edges as well.
+</div>
+
</section>
<section id="section-example-c">
@@ -801,7 +811,7 @@
<h2>PROV-DM Core</h2>
-<p>In this section, we revisit each concept introduction in <a href='#conceptualization'>Section 2</a>, and provide its detailed definition in the PROV data model, in terms of its various constituents. </p>
+<p>In this section, we revisit each concept introduced in <a href='#conceptualization'>Section 2</a>, and provide its detailed definition in the PROV data model, in terms of its various constituents. </p>
<p>In PROV-DM, we distinguish elements from relations, which are respectively discussed in
<a href='#term-element'>Section 4.1</a> and <a href='#term-relation'>Section 4.2</a>.</p>
@@ -1690,8 +1700,8 @@
<section id="term-attribute-location">
<h4>prov:location</h4>
-<p><dfn title="dfn-Location">Location</dfn> is an identifiable geographic place (ISO 19112). As such, there are numerous ways in which location can be expressed, such as by a coordinate,
-address, landmark, row, column, and so forth. This document does not specify how to concretely express locations, but instead provide a mechanism to introduce locations, by means of attributes. </p>
+<p>A <dfn title="dfn-Location">location</dfn> can be not only an identifiable geographic place (ISO 19112), but it can also be a non-geographic place such as a directory, row, or column. As such, there are numerous ways in which location can be expressed, such as by a coordinate,
+address, landmark, and so forth. This document does not specify how to concretely express locations, but instead provide a mechanism to introduce locations, by means of attributes. </p>
<p>
@@ -1962,7 +1972,7 @@
<section id="term-quotation">
<h3>Quotation</h3>
-<div class="note">I find that quotation is really a misnomer. This expands into derivation with attribution, in what sense is the derived entity a "quote" of the original? . The agent that is quoted is particularly obscure. It does not seem to be involved in the quoting at all. Why isn't quoting an activity with the quoting agent associated with it? [PM]</div>
+<div class="note">I find that quotation is really a misnomer. This expands into derivation with attribution, in what sense is the derived entity a "quote" of the original? . The agent that is quoted is particularly obscure. It does not seem to be involved in the quoting at all. Why isn't quoting an activity with the quoting agent associated with it? [PM]. Need example [DG].</div>
<p> A <dfn>quotation</dfn>
is the repeat of an entity (such as text or image) by
@@ -1997,7 +2007,7 @@
<section id="term-orignal-source">
<h3>Original Source</h3>
-<div class="note"> I find this relation confusing. Please add an example. I wouldn't really know when to use this. [PM]</div>
+<div class="note"> I find this relation confusing. Please add an example. I wouldn't really know when to use this. [PM]. Need example [DG]</div>
<p> An <dfn>original source relation</dfn> is a particular case of <a href="#Derivation-Relation">derivation</a> that states that an entity <span class="name">e2</span> (derived) was originally part of some other entity <span class="name">e1</span> (the original source).</p>