--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/model/comments/issue-437-tom.txt Mon Jul 09 17:44:26 2012 -0400
@@ -0,0 +1,241 @@
+ > 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.
+ >
+
+TODO
+
+ >
+ >
+ > - 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 <a>specialization</a>, <a>alternate</a>)
+
+ >
+ > - 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
+ > <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
+ >
+ > 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
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ >