--- a/examples/eg-24-prov-o-html-examples/rdf/create/rdf/b Thu May 03 13:45:16 2012 -0400
+++ /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
@@ -1,221 +0,0 @@
-
-All --
-
-On Apr 2, 2012, at 04:12 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
-Please see ISSUE-336 for the information about reviewing
-PROV-O HTML and OWL.
-
-http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/336
-
-
-
-Apologies for the delay in my review.
-
-Given the progress made on PROV-O, I've written the following
-with reference to the *current* version, approved April 19 for
-release as FPWD2 --
-
-<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html>
-
-(Working Drafts being essentially heartbeats that demonstrate work
-is active, and progress is being made, I saw no need to block this
-release... but these comments remain important.)
-
-
-
-First, to the key questions --
-
-* Does the HTML file provide an adequate overview of the
- OWL design elements?
-
-As things stand, yes.
-
-
-* Do the different organizations of PROV-O HTML and DM
- complement each other, or is it distracting?
-
-Their differences are fine.
-
-
-* Would any additional comments (or attributes) help you
- read the cross reference list in PROV-O HTML?
-
-1. Remove the redundant explanatory text. It should not follow
- *both* IRI and Example. Given my choice, I'd say the better
- positioning is between IRI and Example; not between Example
- and Domain/Range/SuperProperty/SubProperty/etc.
-
- Now seen in at least
- - <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#Activity>
- - <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#Agent>
- - <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#Entity>
-
- But not seen in
- - <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#actedOnBehalfOf>
-
-2. I would appreciate a repeat of Figure 1 at the start of
- section 4.1. I would also appreciate a complete
- set of illustrations similar to Figure 2 at the start
- of section 4.2 (and I would find such a complete set of
- illustrations more useful in Section 3.3 than the tables
- with which it currently concludes; I would not necessarily
- *replace* the tables, but the illustrations are *very*
- helpful to correct understanding).
-
-
-* Are the comments within the OWL file adequate to familiarize
- with the structure? If not, what kinds of comments would help?
-* Should the OWL file contain any links to documentation (e.g.,
- to the DM, to examples, etc.)?
-
-
-* Can the document be released as a next public working draft?
- If no, what are the blocking issues?
-
-As noted earlier... Yes.
-
-
-And now... in depth.
-
-
-3. First thing, an overall style note for the example notation.
- I have found that adding extra space characters to pad columns,
- such that logical columns also *appear* as such, radically
- increases comprehension. You can see a bit that (almost) does
- this in the last stanza of the "Qualified Derivation" example.
- (I'd add spaces between "a" and "prov:Derivation;" to make the
- first line match the ones beneath it.)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-re: 2. PROV-O at a glance
-<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#prov-o-at-a-glance>
-
-4. prov:wasStartedByActivity and prov:wasStartedBy should swap
- positions, between "Starting Point classes and properties"
- and "Expanded classes and properties". The former is clearly
- a refinement of the latter.
-
- Further, I think there should be a new prov:wasStartedByAgent
- (and *possibly* prov:wasStartedByEntity, if an Entity can
- act...), parallel to prov:wasStartedByActivity.
-
- It seems to me that prov:wasStartedBy is the indefinite super-
- property, used when you *don't know* what class started the
- current Activity, with subproperties of prov:wasStartedByAgent
- and prov:wasStartedByActivity (and *possibly*
- prov:wasStartedByEntity), which are used when you *do* know
- the class of the starting, er, entity (not prov:Entity, but
- general RDF entity).
-
- Those changes will necessarily have reflections throughout
- the following and connected documents...
-
-
-
-re: 3.1 Starting Point Terms
-<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#description-starting-point-terms>
-
-5. The diagram (and explanatory text) lacks prov:wasStartedBy
- (and new sub-property/ies prov:wasStartedByActivity and
- prov:wasStartedByAgent).
-
-
-
-6. I think it's important to clearly state that an RDF entity
- which is a prov:Agent or prov:Activity in one Provenance
- document, may be a prov:Entity in another; that an RDF
- entity which is a prov:Entity in one document may act as
- a prov:Agent or a prov:Activity in another -- which is all
- to say, that a prov:Agent or prov:Activity may have its
- own Provenance...
-
-
-
-7. This phrasing is problematic --
-
- "Entities are related to each other using derivation, which is
- used to specify that the creation/existence of an entity was
- influenced in some way by the consumption of another entity."
-
- "Consumption" implies to me some shrinkage or change of the
- "consumed" entity. I think this is not necessary, and thus
- that this wording should change to something like --
-
- "Entities are related to each other using derivation, which is
- used to specify that the creation/existence of an entity was
- influenced in some way by another entity, whether by its simple
- presence or existence (as with chemical catalysts), physical
- interaction and/or consumption (as with chemical reactants),
- or otherwise."
-
-
-
-
-
-re: 3.2 Expanded Terms
-<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#description-expanded-terms>
-
-
-8. "Derek detects a typo. He doesnt' want to record"
-
- I detect a typo. "doesnt' want" should be "doesn't want"
-
-
-
-9. This wording is confusing to me --
-
- "Thus, the location of the new revision has the same permalink,
- but a different url for its snapshot (ex:postContent1)."
-
- The "permalink" abbreviation only replaces 2 words ("permanent
- link"), but here tries to replace a much larger phrase from the
- preceding paragraph ("permanent link where the content of the
- latest version is shown")
-
- I think this would be better --
-
- "Thus, the permalink to the latest version
- (ex:more-crime-happens-in-cities) remains the same in the new
- revision, but a different url is given for its snapshot
- (ex:postContent1)."
-
- I suggest also tweaking all matching lines in the example
- block, from --
-
- prov:atLocation ex:more-crime-happens-in-cities; ##PERMALINK of the post
-
--- to --
-
- prov:atLocation ex:more-crime-happens-in-cities; ##PERMALINK to the (latest revision of the) post
-
-
-
-
-re: 3.4 Collections Terms
-<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#description-collections>
-
-10. I think there's an error in this text --
-
- "The example below specifies that the collection :c1 was
- obtained from the empty collection :c1 by inserting the
- key-value pairs ("k1", :e1) and ("k2", :e2)."
-
- I think that the "empty collection" here is ":c" not ":c1".
-
-
-Though I began this cycle at the conclusion of last week's call,
-I've only gotten this far to this point (the morning of this
-week's call) ... but it seems better to put this partial review
-out now, than to delay it further.
-
-Speak with you soon,
-
-Ted
-
-
-
-
--- a/examples/eg-24-prov-o-html-examples/rdf/create/rdf/c Thu May 03 13:45:16 2012 -0400
+++ /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
@@ -1,221 +0,0 @@
-
- All --
-
- On Apr 2, 2012, at 04:12 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
- Please see ISSUE-336 for the information about reviewing
- PROV-O HTML and OWL.
-
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/336
-
-
-
- Apologies for the delay in my review.
-
- Given the progress made on PROV-O, I've written the following
- with reference to the *current* version, approved April 19 for
- release as FPWD2 --
-
- <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html>
-
- (Working Drafts being essentially heartbeats that demonstrate work
- is active, and progress is being made, I saw no need to block this
- release... but these comments remain important.)
-
-
-
- First, to the key questions --
-
- * Does the HTML file provide an adequate overview of the
- OWL design elements?
-
- As things stand, yes.
-
-
- * Do the different organizations of PROV-O HTML and DM
- complement each other, or is it distracting?
-
- Their differences are fine.
-
-
- * Would any additional comments (or attributes) help you
- read the cross reference list in PROV-O HTML?
-
- 1. Remove the redundant explanatory text. It should not follow
- *both* IRI and Example. Given my choice, I'd say the better
- positioning is between IRI and Example; not between Example
- and Domain/Range/SuperProperty/SubProperty/etc.
-
- Now seen in at least
- - <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#Activity>
- - <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#Agent>
- - <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#Entity>
-
- But not seen in
- - <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#actedOnBehalfOf>
-
- 2. I would appreciate a repeat of Figure 1 at the start of
- section 4.1. I would also appreciate a complete
- set of illustrations similar to Figure 2 at the start
- of section 4.2 (and I would find such a complete set of
- illustrations more useful in Section 3.3 than the tables
- with which it currently concludes; I would not necessarily
- *replace* the tables, but the illustrations are *very*
- helpful to correct understanding).
-
-
- * Are the comments within the OWL file adequate to familiarize
- with the structure? If not, what kinds of comments would help?
- * Should the OWL file contain any links to documentation (e.g.,
- to the DM, to examples, etc.)?
-
-
- * Can the document be released as a next public working draft?
- If no, what are the blocking issues?
-
- As noted earlier... Yes.
-
-
- And now... in depth.
-
-
- 3. First thing, an overall style note for the example notation.
- I have found that adding extra space characters to pad columns,
- such that logical columns also *appear* as such, radically
- increases comprehension. You can see a bit that (almost) does
- this in the last stanza of the "Qualified Derivation" example.
- (I'd add spaces between "a" and "prov:Derivation;" to make the
- first line match the ones beneath it.)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- re: 2. PROV-O at a glance
- <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#prov-o-at-a-glance>
-
- 4. prov:wasStartedByActivity and prov:wasStartedBy should swap
- positions, between "Starting Point classes and properties"
- and "Expanded classes and properties". The former is clearly
- a refinement of the latter.
-
- Further, I think there should be a new prov:wasStartedByAgent
- (and *possibly* prov:wasStartedByEntity, if an Entity can
- act...), parallel to prov:wasStartedByActivity.
-
- It seems to me that prov:wasStartedBy is the indefinite super-
- property, used when you *don't know* what class started the
- current Activity, with subproperties of prov:wasStartedByAgent
- and prov:wasStartedByActivity (and *possibly*
- prov:wasStartedByEntity), which are used when you *do* know
- the class of the starting, er, entity (not prov:Entity, but
- general RDF entity).
-
- Those changes will necessarily have reflections throughout
- the following and connected documents...
-
-
-
- re: 3.1 Starting Point Terms
- <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#description-starting-point-terms>
-
- 5. The diagram (and explanatory text) lacks prov:wasStartedBy
- (and new sub-property/ies prov:wasStartedByActivity and
- prov:wasStartedByAgent).
-
-
-
- 6. I think it's important to clearly state that an RDF entity
- which is a prov:Agent or prov:Activity in one Provenance
- document, may be a prov:Entity in another; that an RDF
- entity which is a prov:Entity in one document may act as
- a prov:Agent or a prov:Activity in another -- which is all
- to say, that a prov:Agent or prov:Activity may have its
- own Provenance...
-
-
-
- 7. This phrasing is problematic --
-
- "Entities are related to each other using derivation, which is
- used to specify that the creation/existence of an entity was
- influenced in some way by the consumption of another entity."
-
- "Consumption" implies to me some shrinkage or change of the
- "consumed" entity. I think this is not necessary, and thus
- that this wording should change to something like --
-
- "Entities are related to each other using derivation, which is
- used to specify that the creation/existence of an entity was
- influenced in some way by another entity, whether by its simple
- presence or existence (as with chemical catalysts), physical
- interaction and/or consumption (as with chemical reactants),
- or otherwise."
-
-
-
-
-
- re: 3.2 Expanded Terms
- <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#description-expanded-terms>
-
-
- 8. "Derek detects a typo. He doesnt' want to record"
-
- I detect a typo. "doesnt' want" should be "doesn't want"
-
-
-
- 9. This wording is confusing to me --
-
- "Thus, the location of the new revision has the same permalink,
- but a different url for its snapshot (ex:postContent1)."
-
- The "permalink" abbreviation only replaces 2 words ("permanent
- link"), but here tries to replace a much larger phrase from the
- preceding paragraph ("permanent link where the content of the
- latest version is shown")
-
- I think this would be better --
-
- "Thus, the permalink to the latest version
- (ex:more-crime-happens-in-cities) remains the same in the new
- revision, but a different url is given for its snapshot
- (ex:postContent1)."
-
- I suggest also tweaking all matching lines in the example
- block, from --
-
- prov:atLocation ex:more-crime-happens-in-cities; ##PERMALINK of the post
-
- -- to --
-
- prov:atLocation ex:more-crime-happens-in-cities; ##PERMALINK to the (latest revision of the) post
-
-
-
-
- re: 3.4 Collections Terms
- <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fb23031cf708/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#description-collections>
-
- 10. I think there's an error in this text --
-
- "The example below specifies that the collection :c1 was
- obtained from the empty collection :c1 by inserting the
- key-value pairs ("k1", :e1) and ("k2", :e2)."
-
- I think that the "empty collection" here is ":c" not ":c1".
-
-
- Though I began this cycle at the conclusion of last week's call,
- I've only gotten this far to this point (the morning of this
- week's call) ... but it seems better to put this partial review
- out now, than to delay it further.
-
- Speak with you soon,
-
- Ted
-
-
-
-