--- a/model/comments/issue-274-eric.txt Wed Feb 29 17:44:35 2012 -0500
+++ b/model/comments/issue-274-eric.txt Thu Mar 01 14:53:55 2012 +0100
@@ -18,17 +18,26 @@
> they don’t tie into the example and collections isn’t mentioned again
> until section 5.8. While they are important perhaps could this
> section be left out of section 2?
+
+TODO: to consider. At this stage, I would prefer to keep them there, until
+the model is completely finalized. We could reassess then.
+
>
> Section 3 Example
>
> Prior to the auditor example could an ultra simple example debuting an
> agent, process and entity something like “w3:Consortium publishes a
> technical report”?
+
+Added sentence, at the beginning of section 3.
+
>
> I’m wondering if the detailed auditor provenance example could be
> introduced first in a human readable story format prior to the
> bulleted list that highlights the specific provenance related
> concepts.
+
+Added descriptions in section 3.1 and 3.2.
>
> In the example use of the somewhat cryptic working draft names
> “tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215” “tr:WD-prov-dm-20111018” is a bit difficult
@@ -36,22 +45,38 @@
> names to keep track of the different documents. While this might be
> less realistic something like model-rev1.html, model-rev2.html might
> illustrate the same ideas.
+
+The whole point was to use real identifiers, to be close to "scruffy
+provenance".
+
>
> I am wondering if it might be more intuitive if the provenance graphic
> illustration preceeded the PROV-ASN notation. It provides a graphic
> that a person can study as they study the PROV-DM assertions in
> PROV-ASN notation.
+
+It was difficult to reorganize, since we needed to introduce the
+various concepts. So, instead, a sentence introduces the graphical
+notation.
+
>
> The graphic illustration seems to capture all the examples of
> provenance from the bulleted list while the PROV-DM assertions in
> PROV-ASN seem to be either incomplete (there isn’t a one to one
> correspondence to follow from the example to the PROV-DM assertions.
+
+I am not sure I understand.
+Need to get Eric to point to concrete differences.
+
>
> 3.2 Great job bringing in the concept of viewing other perspectives
> on the same example.
>
> 4.2 Activity names in the table need updating.
>
+
+??? which table?
+
> 4.3.3.5 prov:location – Could we change the wording slightly to say
> that Location is loosely based on an ISO 19112 but can also refer to
> non-geographic places such as a directory or row/column? The specific
--- a/model/prov-dm-constraints.html Wed Feb 29 17:44:35 2012 -0500
+++ b/model/prov-dm-constraints.html Thu Mar 01 14:53:55 2012 +0100
@@ -558,13 +558,6 @@
<section id="term-element">
<h3>Element</h3>
-<div class="issue">
-There is still some confusion about what the identifiers really denote. For instance, are they entity identifiers or entity record identifiers. This is <a
-href="http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/183">ISSUE-183</a>.
-An example and questions appear in <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/215">ISSUE-215</a>. A related issued is also raised in <a
-href="http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/145">ISSUE-145</a>.
-</div>
-
<section id="term-Entity">
<h4>Entity</h4>
--- a/model/prov-dm.html Wed Feb 29 17:44:35 2012 -0500
+++ b/model/prov-dm.html Thu Mar 01 14:53:55 2012 +0100
@@ -614,8 +614,9 @@
<section id="prov-dm-example">
<h2>Example</h2>
-
-<p>In this example, we consider the second version of the PROV-DM document
+<p>The World Wide Web Consortium publishes many technical reports. In this example, we consider a technical report, and describe its provenance. </p>
+
+<p>Specifically, we consider the second version of the PROV-DM document
<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-dm-20111215">http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-dm-20111215</a>. Its provenance can be expressed from several perspectives, which we present. In the first one, provenance is concerned with the W3C process, whereas in the second one, it takes the authors' viewpoint. </p>
@@ -623,11 +624,19 @@
<h3>The Process View</h3>
-
+<p style="font-style:italic; " ><b>Description:</b> The World Wide Web
+Consortium publishes technical reports according to its publication
+policy. Working drafts are published regularly to reflect the work
+accomplished by working groups. Every publication of a working draft
+must be preceded by a "publication request" to the Webmaster. The
+very first version of a technical report must also preceded by a
+"transition request" to be approved by the W3C director. All working
+drafts are made available at a unique URI. In this scenario, we consider two successive versions of a given report, the policy according they were published, and the associated requests.
+</p>
<p>
-In this section, we show the kind of provenance record that the <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium">WWW Consortium</a> could keep for auditors to check that due processes are followed. All entities involved in this example are Web resources, with well defined URIs (some of which locating archived email messages, available to W3C Members).</p>
+Concretely, in this section, we describe the kind of provenance record that the <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium">WWW Consortium</a> could keep for auditors to check that due processes are followed. All entities involved in this example are Web resources, with well defined URIs (some of which locating archived email messages, available to W3C Members).</p>
<ul>
<li> Two versions of the technical report are involved: <span class="name"><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-dm-20111215">tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215</a></span> (second working draft) and <span class="name"><span class="name"><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-dm-20111018">tr:WD-prov-dm-20111018</a></span></span> (first working draft);</li>
@@ -644,7 +653,7 @@
</ul>
<p>
-We now paraphrase some PROV-DM assertions, and illustrate them with the PROV-ASN notation, a notation for PROV-DM aimed at human consumption. Full details of the provenance record can be found <a href="examples/w3c-publication1.prov-asn">here</a>.
+We now paraphrase some PROV-DM descriptions, and illustrate them with the PROV-ASN notation, a notation for PROV-DM aimed at human consumption. We then follow them with a graphical illustration. Full details of the provenance record can be found <a href="examples/w3c-publication1.prov-asn">here</a>.
<ul>
<li>There is a technical report, a working draft on the recommendation track (<a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#RecsWD">pr:RecsWD</a>), which is regarded as an entity so that we can describe its provenance. Similar descriptions exist for all entities.
@@ -719,8 +728,19 @@
<section id="section-example-b">
<h3>The Authors View</h3>
-<p>In this section, we consider another perspective on technical report
-<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-dm-20111215">http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-dm-20111215</a>. Here, provenance is concerned with the document editing activity, as perceived by authors. This kind of information could be used by authors in their CV or in a narrative about this document. </p>
+
+<p style="font-style:italic; " ><b>Description:</b> A technical report
+is edited by some editor, using contributions from various
+contributors.
+</p>
+
+
+
+<p>Here, we consider another perspective on technical report
+<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-dm-20111215">http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-dm-20111215</a>. Provenance is concerned with the document editing activity, as perceived by authors. This kind of information could be used by authors in their CV or in a narrative about this document. </p>
+
+
+
<ul>
<li> The same technical report is involved: <span class="name"><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-dm-20111215">tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215</a></span>;</li>