--- a/model/comments/issue-331-Cheney.txt Wed Apr 11 09:20:32 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/comments/issue-331-Cheney.txt Wed Apr 11 09:43:03 2012 +0100
@@ -1,62 +1,163 @@
-High-level comments:
-
-* I feel that the PROV-DM document takes a long time to get to the point. We do not see any concrete examples of PROV notation (in PROV-N or PROV-O) until the end of section 2. Moreover, the discussionfocuses on explaining the concepts in isolation rather than describing the high-level modeling problems they work together to solve.
-
-Suggestion: Move the PROV-N section to the beginning of sec. 2 and illustrate the concepts through examples. Or, arguably this is redundant given that the primer does more or less the same thing: perhaps, simply drop section 2 and proceed to the specification.
-
-* The main examples (sec 3.1, 3.2, 4.6) are too "meta" - why not restate them in more generic terms. These examples about describing the WG's own activities sound a little self-centered.
-
-Given that both the primer and ontology use extended examples, why not align with one or both of them?
-
-* I feel that the document doesn't lay things out in a logical order. I think it would be helpful to list the basic or standard constituents first: they are currently in sections 4.3 and higher. In particular, the fact that some attribute names are reserved is left implicit in several descriptions of examples, and not explicitly discussed in the corresponding section.
-
-* PLEASE say somewhere prominently what the convention(s) are for optional arguments. Some are simply omitted (e.g. initial identifiers, attribute lists) while others are replaced by "-". Please make sure that all of the examples make sense with respect to whichever convention is in use.
-
-* Reading the document, I wondered why generation and use have time instants rather than intervals. Why couldn't an activity use something over an interval, or generate something during an interval? We should say why we only care about the end of generation and beginning of use.
-
-* There are a LOT of parenthetical examples, which I think stand little chance of making sense to a reader who hasn't been following the mailing list.
+ > High-level comments:
+ >
+ > * I feel that the PROV-DM document takes a long time to get to the
+ > point. We do not see any concrete examples of PROV notation (in
+ > PROV-N or PROV-O) until the end of section 2. Moreover, the
+ > discussionfocuses on explaining the concepts in isolation rather
+ > than describing the high-level modeling problems they work together
+ > to solve.
+ >
+ > Suggestion: Move the PROV-N section to the beginning of sec. 2 and
+ > illustrate the concepts through examples. Or, arguably this is
+ > redundant given that the primer does more or less the same thing:
+ > perhaps, simply drop section 2 and proceed to the specification.
-Detailed comments: (Quotes with starred substrings represent suggested edits.)
-
-Why "people" and not "agents"?
+We have some suggestions
+- to move prov-n section earlier (james)
+- to move it later (gk)
+- that the structure is right.
-Why do we say that the various aspects of the standards are necessary, rather than just appropriate? There may be other ways of dong this.
-
-Sec 1. "very quickly" -> "quickly"
-"extra-descriptions" -> "extra descriptions"
-"interval " -> "intervals"
-
-Section 4 provides the *definitions* of PROV-DM concepts, structured according to six components.
+It feels to me it's right!
-2.2: "A same entity" -> "The same entity" - this happens many times
-
-2.6. The activity in the example has the wrong number of arguments (the times are omitted, but I believe should be replaced with "-"). Also, the convention about missing arguments being written "-" is very important and should be explained somewhere prominently, with examples. This happens many more times.
-
-3.1. "(some of which *locate* archived email messages, available to W3C Members)."
-
-4.1.2. The reserved attribute "type" is mentioned here. Where is hte list of all reserved attributes? Why not list them up front as part of the preliminaries?
-
-4.1.3. The first example in Generation: p1 and p2 should be in code font.
+ >
+ > * The main examples (sec 3.1, 3.2, 4.6) are too "meta" - why not
+ > restate them in more generic terms. These examples about describing
+ > the WG's own activities sound a little self-centered.
-4.2.3. The missing id arguments to wasAssociatedWith in the examples are not marked as "-". Happens again in 4.2.4, 4.1.5, 4.1.6, etc. Also, many missing attribute lists are omitted without being replaced by "-". This is a sensible convention but is not stated anywhere.
-
-4.2.4. The examples discussed in the second paragraph are not mentioned anywhere else. So say "For example" instead of "In the example".
-
-4.2.4. Here and elsewhere, the term "modalities of ..." is used to describe what the attributes are for.
+The point was to have a *real* example with real urls.
-4.2.4. "a funder agents" - case mismatch
+ >
+ > Given that both the primer and ontology use extended examples, why not
+ > align with one or both of them?
-4.3.1 " And to provide a completely accurate description of the derivation" -> "To provide a more accurate ..."
-
-4.6. "extra-information" -> "extra information"
-
-4.6. Concerning annotations, why would I want to do this instead of directly putting the x and y positions on the entity?
+As a WG, I would hope we can come up with more than one examples.
-4.7.4.[3,4]: Why are role and type attributes allowd to occur multiple times? Ordinary attributes aren't (I thought). If we want to allow multiple occurrences of attribute names, why stop with these two?
+ >
+ > * I feel that the document doesn't lay things out in a logical order.
+ > I think it would be helpful to list the basic or standard
+ > constituents first: they are currently in sections 4.3 and higher.
+ > In particular, the fact that some attribute names are reserved is
+ > left implicit in several descriptions of examples, and not
+ > explicitly discussed in the corresponding section.
-4.7.5 "the string "abc", the string "abc" " - repeated text
+I am worried about the reference to section 4.3 which refers to an old version of the document
+WD4? pre-component?
+I think it's more important to explain the various concepts first, before
+some of the building blocks, e.g. namespace, identifiers, attributes.
+
+suggestion: one could add forwarding links for prov:type, etc
+
+ >
+ > * PLEASE say somewhere prominently what the convention(s) are for
+ > optional arguments. Some are simply omitted (e.g. initial
+ > identifiers, attribute lists) while others are replaced by "-".
+ > Please make sure that all of the examples make sense with respect to
+ > whichever convention is in use.
+
+Need to revisit 2.6.
+
+ >
+ > * Reading the document, I wondered why generation and use have time
+ > instants rather than intervals. Why couldn't an activity use
+ > something over an interval, or generate something during an
+ > interval? We should say why we only care about the end of
+ > generation and beginning of use.
+
+
+We had a vote on this. I can't find it.
+
+ >
+ > * There are a LOT of parenthetical examples, which I think stand
+ > little chance of making sense to a reader who hasn't been following
+ > the mailing list.
+
+
+Which ones? Can you list them? Alternative suggestions are welcome!
+
+ >
+ >
+ > Detailed comments: (Quotes with starred substrings represent suggested edits.)
+ >
+ > Why "people" and not "agents"?
+
+Same as Curt.
+
+ >
+ > Why do we say that the various aspects of the standards are necessary,
+ > rather than just appropriate? There may be other ways of dong this.
+ >
+ > Sec 1. "very quickly" -> "quickly"
+ > "extra-descriptions" -> "extra descriptions"
+ > "interval " -> "intervals"
+ >
+ > Section 4 provides the *definitions* of PROV-DM concepts, structured
+ > according to six components.
+ >
+ >
+ > 2.2: "A same entity" -> "The same entity" - this happens many times
+ >
+ > 2.6. The activity in the example has the wrong number of arguments
+ > (the times are omitted, but I believe should be replaced with "-").
+ > Also, the convention about missing arguments being written "-" is very
+ > important and should be explained somewhere prominently, with
+ > examples. This happens many more times.
+ >
+ > 3.1. "(some of which *locate* archived email messages, available to W3C Members)."
+ >
+ > 4.1.2. The reserved attribute "type" is mentioned here. Where is hte
+ > list of all reserved attributes? Why not list them up front as part
+ > of the preliminaries?
+ >
+ > 4.1.3. The first example in Generation: p1 and p2 should be in code font.
+ >
+ > 4.2.3. The missing id arguments to wasAssociatedWith in the examples
+ > are not marked as "-". Happens again in 4.2.4, 4.1.5, 4.1.6, etc.
+ > Also, many missing attribute lists are omitted without being replaced
+ > by "-". This is a sensible convention but is not stated anywhere.
+
+Revisit bullet 3 in section 2.6.
+
+ >
+ > 4.2.4. The examples discussed in the second paragraph are not
+ > mentioned anywhere else. So say "For example" instead of "In the
+ > example".
+ >
+ > 4.2.4. Here and elsewhere, the term "modalities of ..." is used to
+ > describe what the attributes are for.
+
+To replace according to GK's suggestion
+
+ >
+ > 4.2.4. "a funder agents" - case mismatch
+ >
+ > 4.3.1 " And to provide a completely accurate description of the
+ > derivation" -> "To provide a more accurate ..."
+ >
+ > 4.6. "extra-information" -> "extra information"
+ >
+ > 4.6. Concerning annotations, why would I want to do this instead of
+ > directly putting the x and y positions on the entity?
+
+Different moments.
+
+ >
+ >
+ > 4.7.4.[3,4]: Why are role and type attributes allowd to occur multiple
+ > times? Ordinary attributes aren't (I thought). If we want to allow
+ > multiple occurrences of attribute names, why stop with these two?
+ >
+
+We could allow this for prov:label and prov:location too.
+Does this make sense for prov:location?
+
+ >
+ > 4.7.5 "the string "abc", the string "abc" " - repeated text
+ >
+ >
+
+Yes, to fix.
--- a/model/comments/issue-331-curt.txt Wed Apr 11 09:20:32 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/comments/issue-331-curt.txt Wed Apr 11 09:43:03 2012 +0100
@@ -1,345 +1,369 @@
-General:
-
-I probably missed some discussion about this, but the '-' placeholder
-for missing optional arguments is inconsistently used in the PROV-N
-examples. Is it always required? I don't really care for it in
-optional arguments where the argument mapping is unambiguous,
-particularly at the beginning or end of the argument list.
-
-
-
-The examples also seem to inconsistently use the prov defined types,
-e.g. prov:Person, prov:Collection, etc.
-
-For example,
-
- [prov:type="Collection"]
-
- vs.
-
- [prov:type="prov:Collection" %% xsd:QName]
-
-Is there a real distinction between these we should be highlighting,
-or should we be using them the same way in the various examples?
-
-
-
-
-Abstract
---------
-
-"PROV-DM, the PROV data model, is a data model for
-provenance that describes the entities, people and activities involved
-in producing a piece of data or thing."
-
- Why not use the term 'agents' instead of people in the first
- sentence?
-
-
-"actities"
-
- typo
-
-
-"Second, to be able to provide examples of provenance, a notation is
-used for expressing instances of PROV-DM for human consumption; the
-syntactic details of this notation are also kept in a separate
-document."
-
- This seems awkwardly worded to me. Here's a stab at a revision,
- perhaps someone could reword it even better:
-
- Second, a separate document describes a provenance notation used for
- expressing instances of provenance for human consumption. It is used
- in examples in this document.
-
-
-Status of This Document
------------------------
-
-"...a set of specifications aiming to define the various aspects..."
-
- be optimistic! we will hit our aim!
-
- ...a set of specifications that define various aspects...
-
- or even
-
- ...a set of specifications defining various aspects...
-
-
-
-The specifications are as follows.
-
- If it is acceptable style, I would end that with a colon, as
- follows:
-
-
-In the list of documents, some end with , some . and some ; I
-would do them all the same way.
-
-
-The primer is the entry point to PROV offering a pedagogical
-presentation of the provenance model.
-
- "offering an introduction to the provenance model."
-
-
-...separating the data model, from its contraints, and the notation
-used to illustrate it.
-
- remove commas:
-
- ...separating the data model from its contraints and the notation
- used to illustrate it.
-
-
-The PROV-DM release is synchronized with the release of the PROV-O,
-PROV-PRIMER, PROV-N, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS documents.
-
- add "and" between last two
-
-
-We are now making clear what the entry path to the PROV family of
-specifications is.
-
- We are now clarifying the entry path to the PROV family of
- specifications.
-
-
-1. Introduction
----------------
-
-...with extra-descriptions that help...
-
- extraneous -?
-
-
-...introduction to the PROV data model by overviewing a set of concepts...
-
- ...introduction to the PROV data model with an overview of concepts...
-
-
-2.1 Entity and Activity
------------------------
-
-...over a triple store, and editing a file.
-
- change 'and' to 'or'
-
-
-2.2 Generation, Usage, Derivation
----------------------------------
-
-In some case, the consumption...
-
- some cases
-
-
-2.3 Agents and Other Types of Entities
---------------------------------------
-
-Three types of agents are recognized because they are commonly
-encountered in applications making data and documents available on the
-Web: persons, software agents, and organizations.
-
- Should those three be bolded here? Maybe not since we aren't
- really defining them and they are just special defined types?
-
-
-...member of the collections.
-
- of the collection.
-
-
-This concept allows for the provenance of the collection, but also of
-its constituents to be expressed.
-
- This concept allows for the provenance of the collection itself to
- be expressed in addition to that of the constituents.
-
-
-Such a notion of collection corresponds to a wide variety of concrete
-data structures, such as a maps, dictionaries, or associative arrays.
-
- I'm not certain I would describe this is as a "wide variety" -- I
- think of those as pretty much the same thing...
-
- Perhaps just "Such a notion of collection corresponds to concrete
- data structures such as a maps, dictionaries, or associative arrays."?
-
+ > General:
+ >
+ > I probably missed some discussion about this, but the '-' placeholder
+ > for missing optional arguments is inconsistently used in the PROV-N
+ > examples. Is it always required? I don't really care for it in
+ > optional arguments where the argument mapping is unambiguous,
+ > particularly at the beginning or end of the argument list.
-2.5 Simplified Overview Diagram
--------------------------------
-
-I would add a sentence somewhere in here about Agent being an Entity.
-
-Maybe here:
-
- ...how they relate to each other. At this stage...
-
- ...how they relate to each other. Note that each agent is also an
- entity, so the entity relationships can also apply to agents. At
- this stage...
-
-
-2.6 PROV-N: The Provenance Notation
------------------------------------
-
-PROV-N is a notation that is designed to write instances...
-
- PROV-N is a notation for writing instances...
-
-
-...a series of arguments in bracket.
-
- ...a series of arguments in brackets.
-
- (actually, I usually call them parentheses, but either is fine.)
-
-
-The bulleted list here has inconsistent spacing between bulleted
-items.
-
-
-...which always occur in first position...
-
- ...which always occurs in the first position...
-
-
-...which occur in last position...
-
- ...which occurs in the last position...
-
-
- actually, I would probably just take out the 'occur' and word it
- like this:
-
- Most expressions have an identifier in the first position, and an
- optional set of attribute-value pairs in the last position,
- delimited by square brackets.
-
-
-3.1 The Process View
---------------------
-
-...some of which locating archived email messages, available to...
-
- ...some of which refer to archived email messages available only
- to...
-
-
-..illustrate them with the PROV-N notation, a notation for PROV-DM
-aimed at human consumption.
-
- I would eliminate the explanation and just say
-
- ...illustrate them with the PROV-N notation.
-
-
-4. PROV-DM Types and Relations
-
-
-...derivations and its derivation subtypes.
-
- remove 'its':
-
- ...derivations and derivation subtypes.
-
-
-...somehow referring to a same thing.
-
- referring to the same thing.
-
-
-4.1 Component 1: Entities and Activities
-----------------------------------------
+TODO. Need to check. and explain the convention.
-...and their inter-relations...
-
- ...and their interrelations...
-
-
-Figure figure-component1 overviews the first component, with two "UML
-classes" and binary associations between them.
-
- Figure figure-component1 uses UML to depict the first component with
- two classes and binary associations between them.
-
- (If you reword this figure description, make the other figure
- descriptions match, if not, don't
-
-
-Associations are not just binary; indeed, Usage, Generation, Start,
-End are remarkable because they have time attributes, which are
-placeholders for time information related to provenance.
-
- Associations are not just binary; indeed, Usage, Generation, Start,
- End also include time attributes.
-
-
-4.1.3 Generation
-----------------
-
-...state the existence of two generations (with respective times
-2001-10-26T21:32:52 and 2001-10-26T10:00:00), at which new entities,
-identified by e1 and e2, are created by an activity, identified by a1.
-
- ...describe the generation of new entitities e1 and e2 by activity
- a1 at respective times 2001-10-26T21:32:52 and 2001-10-26T10:00:00.
-
-
-4.1.4 Usage
------------
-
-...state that the activity identified by a1 used two entities
-identified by e1 and e2, at times...
-
-
- ...state that activity a1 used entities e1 and e2 at times...
-
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > The examples also seem to inconsistently use the prov defined types,
+ > e.g. prov:Person, prov:Collection, etc.
+ >
+ > For example,
+ >
+ > [prov:type="Collection"]
+ >
+ > vs.
+ >
+ > [prov:type="prov:Collection" %% xsd:QName]
+ >
+ > Is there a real distinction between these we should be highlighting,
+ > or should we be using them the same way in the various examples?
+ >
-4.3 Component 3: Derivations
-----------------------------
-
-see figure note on 4.1 above -- I don't like the verb "overviews".
-I also wouldn't say
-
- So-called "UML association classes" are used...
-
-Just say
-
- UML association classes are used...
-
-
-4.3.1 Derivation
-----------------
-
-The reason for optional information such as activity, generation, and
-usage to be linked to derivations is to aid analysis of provenance and
-to facilitate provenance-based reproducibility.
+I thought I had fixed them all. Obviously not. TODO.
- Optional information such as activity, generation, and usage can be
- linked to derivations to aid analysis of provenance and to
- facilitate provenance-based reproducibility.
-
-
-...it was passed as, if the activity...
-
- replace , with 'or'
-
+It would be nice to have a notation in ASN for qualified names, e.g:
-4.5 Component 5: Collections
-----------------------------
-
-In many applications, it is also of interest to be able to express the
-provenance of the collection itself...
+[prov:type = <prov:Collection>]
- Many applications also need to express the provenance of the
- collection itself...
-
+
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > Abstract
+ > --------
+ >
+ > "PROV-DM, the PROV data model, is a data model for
+ > provenance that describes the entities, people and activities involved
+ > in producing a piece of data or thing."
+ >
+ > Why not use the term 'agents' instead of people in the first
+ > sentence?
+ >
-4.7.4.4 prov:type
------------------
+I think it's important to say people and not agent.
+
+ >
+ > "actities"
+ >
+ > typo
-include Collection and EmptyCollection here?
\ No newline at end of file
+OK
+ >
+ >
+ > "Second, to be able to provide examples of provenance, a notation is
+ > used for expressing instances of PROV-DM for human consumption; the
+ > syntactic details of this notation are also kept in a separate
+ > document."
+ >
+ > This seems awkwardly worded to me. Here's a stab at a revision,
+ > perhaps someone could reword it even better:
+ >
+ > Second, a separate document describes a provenance notation used for
+ > expressing instances of provenance for human consumption. It is used
+ > in examples in this document.
+ >
+ >
+
+ok
+
+ > Status of This Document
+ > -----------------------
+ >
+ > "...a set of specifications aiming to define the various aspects..."
+ >
+ > be optimistic! we will hit our aim!
+ >
+ > ...a set of specifications that define various aspects...
+ >
+ > or even
+ >
+ > ...a set of specifications defining various aspects...
+ >
+ >
+
+ok
+ >
+ > The specifications are as follows.
+ >
+ > If it is acceptable style, I would end that with a colon, as
+ > follows:
+ >
+ >
+ > In the list of documents, some end with , some . and some ; I
+ > would do them all the same way.
+
+
+oops, intended ; except . for the last
+
+ >
+ > The primer is the entry point to PROV offering a pedagogical
+ > presentation of the provenance model.
+ >
+ > "offering an introduction to the provenance model."
+ >
+ >
+ > ...separating the data model, from its contraints, and the notation
+ > used to illustrate it.
+ >
+ > remove commas:
+ >
+ > ...separating the data model from its contraints and the notation
+ > used to illustrate it.
+ >
+ >
+ > The PROV-DM release is synchronized with the release of the PROV-O,
+ > PROV-PRIMER, PROV-N, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS documents.
+ >
+ > add "and" between last two
+ >
+ >
+ > We are now making clear what the entry path to the PROV family of
+ > specifications is.
+ >
+ > We are now clarifying the entry path to the PROV family of
+ > specifications.
+ >
+ >
+ > 1. Introduction
+ > ---------------
+ >
+ > ...with extra-descriptions that help...
+ >
+ > extraneous -?
+ >
+ >
+ > ...introduction to the PROV data model by overviewing a set of concepts...
+ >
+ > ...introduction to the PROV data model with an overview of concepts...
+ >
+ >
+ > 2.1 Entity and Activity
+ > -----------------------
+ >
+ > ...over a triple store, and editing a file.
+ >
+ > change 'and' to 'or'
+ >
+ >
+ > 2.2 Generation, Usage, Derivation
+ > ---------------------------------
+ >
+ > In some case, the consumption...
+ >
+ > some cases
+ >
+ >
+ > 2.3 Agents and Other Types of Entities
+ > --------------------------------------
+ >
+ > Three types of agents are recognized because they are commonly
+ > encountered in applications making data and documents available on the
+ > Web: persons, software agents, and organizations.
+ >
+ > Should those three be bolded here? Maybe not since we aren't
+ > really defining them and they are just special defined types?
+ >
+ >
+ > ...member of the collections.
+ >
+ > of the collection.
+ >
+ >
+ > This concept allows for the provenance of the collection, but also of
+ > its constituents to be expressed.
+ >
+ > This concept allows for the provenance of the collection itself to
+ > be expressed in addition to that of the constituents.
+ >
+ >
+ > Such a notion of collection corresponds to a wide variety of concrete
+ > data structures, such as a maps, dictionaries, or associative arrays.
+ >
+ > I'm not certain I would describe this is as a "wide variety" -- I
+ > think of those as pretty much the same thing...
+ >
+ > Perhaps just "Such a notion of collection corresponds to concrete
+ > data structures such as a maps, dictionaries, or associative arrays."?
+ >
+ >
+ > 2.5 Simplified Overview Diagram
+ > -------------------------------
+ >
+ > I would add a sentence somewhere in here about Agent being an Entity.
+ >
+ > Maybe here:
+ >
+ > ...how they relate to each other. At this stage...
+ >
+ > ...how they relate to each other. Note that each agent is also an
+ > entity, so the entity relationships can also apply to agents. At
+ > this stage...
+ >
+ >
+ > 2.6 PROV-N: The Provenance Notation
+ > -----------------------------------
+ >
+ > PROV-N is a notation that is designed to write instances...
+ >
+ > PROV-N is a notation for writing instances...
+ >
+ >
+ > ...a series of arguments in bracket.
+ >
+ > ...a series of arguments in brackets.
+ >
+ > (actually, I usually call them parentheses, but either is fine.)
+ >
+ >
+ > The bulleted list here has inconsistent spacing between bulleted
+ > items.
+ >
+ >
+ > ...which always occur in first position...
+ >
+ > ...which always occurs in the first position...
+ >
+ >
+ > ...which occur in last position...
+ >
+ > ...which occurs in the last position...
+ >
+ >
+ > actually, I would probably just take out the 'occur' and word it
+ > like this:
+ >
+ > Most expressions have an identifier in the first position, and an
+ > optional set of attribute-value pairs in the last position,
+ > delimited by square brackets.
+ >
+ >
+ > 3.1 The Process View
+ > --------------------
+ >
+ > ...some of which locating archived email messages, available to...
+ >
+ > ...some of which refer to archived email messages available only
+ > to...
+ >
+ >
+ > ..illustrate them with the PROV-N notation, a notation for PROV-DM
+ > aimed at human consumption.
+ >
+ > I would eliminate the explanation and just say
+ >
+ > ...illustrate them with the PROV-N notation.
+ >
+ >
+ > 4. PROV-DM Types and Relations
+ >
+ >
+ > ...derivations and its derivation subtypes.
+ >
+ > remove 'its':
+ >
+ > ...derivations and derivation subtypes.
+ >
+ >
+ > ...somehow referring to a same thing.
+ >
+ > referring to the same thing.
+ >
+ >
+ > 4.1 Component 1: Entities and Activities
+ > ----------------------------------------
+ >
+ > ...and their inter-relations...
+ >
+ > ...and their interrelations...
+ >
+ >
+ > Figure figure-component1 overviews the first component, with two "UML
+ > classes" and binary associations between them.
+ >
+ > Figure figure-component1 uses UML to depict the first component with
+ > two classes and binary associations between them.
+ >
+ > (If you reword this figure description, make the other figure
+ > descriptions match, if not, don't
+ >
+ >
+ > Associations are not just binary; indeed, Usage, Generation, Start,
+ > End are remarkable because they have time attributes, which are
+ > placeholders for time information related to provenance.
+ >
+ > Associations are not just binary; indeed, Usage, Generation, Start,
+ > End also include time attributes.
+ >
+ >
+ > 4.1.3 Generation
+ > ----------------
+ >
+ > ...state the existence of two generations (with respective times
+ > 2001-10-26T21:32:52 and 2001-10-26T10:00:00), at which new entities,
+ > identified by e1 and e2, are created by an activity, identified by a1.
+ >
+ > ...describe the generation of new entitities e1 and e2 by activity
+ > a1 at respective times 2001-10-26T21:32:52 and 2001-10-26T10:00:00.
+ >
+ >
+ > 4.1.4 Usage
+ > -----------
+ >
+ > ...state that the activity identified by a1 used two entities
+ > identified by e1 and e2, at times...
+ >
+ >
+ > ...state that activity a1 used entities e1 and e2 at times...
+ >
+ >
+ > 4.3 Component 3: Derivations
+ > ----------------------------
+ >
+ > see figure note on 4.1 above -- I don't like the verb "overviews".
+ > I also wouldn't say
+ >
+ > So-called "UML association classes" are used...
+ >
+ > Just say
+ >
+ > UML association classes are used...
+ >
+ >
+ > 4.3.1 Derivation
+ > ----------------
+ >
+ > The reason for optional information such as activity, generation, and
+ > usage to be linked to derivations is to aid analysis of provenance and
+ > to facilitate provenance-based reproducibility.
+ >
+ > Optional information such as activity, generation, and usage can be
+ > linked to derivations to aid analysis of provenance and to
+ > facilitate provenance-based reproducibility.
+ >
+ >
+ > ...it was passed as, if the activity...
+ >
+ > replace , with 'or'
+ >
+ >
+ > 4.5 Component 5: Collections
+ > ----------------------------
+ >
+ > In many applications, it is also of interest to be able to express the
+ > provenance of the collection itself...
+ >
+ > Many applications also need to express the provenance of the
+ > collection itself...
+ >
+ >
+ > 4.7.4.4 prov:type
+ > -----------------
+ >
+ > include Collection and EmptyCollection here?