--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/model/comments/issue-332-Tim.txt Mon Apr 16 17:14:05 2012 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,195 @@
+PROV-N editors,
+
+I think the draft is acceptable for public release.
+Please see my general comments below.
+
+Regards,
+Tim
+
+http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-dm-20120402/prov-n.html
+
+
+==================
+General comments
+
+1)
+Perhaps "RDF's reliance on triples" should be "RDF's insistence on triples" :-)
+
+2)
+the intro to syntactic marker - shows assertions with a missing marker for the id (the first position)
+
+wasDerivedFrom(e2, e1, a, g2, u1)
+wasDerivedFrom(e2, e1, a, -, -)
+wasDerivedFrom(e2, e1, -, -, -)
+
+should be
+
+wasDerivedFrom(-, e2, e1, a, g2, u1)
+wasDerivedFrom(-, e2, e1, a, -, -)
+wasDerivedFrom(-, e2, e1, -, -, -)
+
+
+apparently the marker is optional. Why is it optional?
+
+
+3)
+I'm not sure what to take away from this:
+"""
+ PROV-N exposes attributes that PROV-DM provides an interpretation for [PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS] directly as positional arguments of expressions, whereas those for which PROV-DM provides no interpretation are expressed among the optional attribute-value pairs. This latter category of attributes includes prov:label, prov:location, prov:role, and prov:type.
+"""
+* suggest adding an example of the two (start time is positional, foo=bar and prov:role are latter category)
+
+
+
+
+
+4)
+I was a bit surprised that DM and -constraints says that "it is assumed that containers exist", but then PROV-N does it.
+I guess it makes sense.
+
+
+
+5)
+entityExpression ::= entity ( identifier optional-attribute-values )
+
+but "identifier" is not defined anywhere within view.
+* recommend adding a link to the productions that are not defined within view.
+
+
+
+
+6)
+expression
+ ::=
+entityExpression | activityExpression | generationExpression | usageExpression
+ | startExpression | endExpression | communicationExpression | startByActivityExpression
+ | agentExpression | attributionExpression | associationExpression | responsibilityExpression
+ | derivationExpression | revisionExpression | quotationExpression
+ | hadOriginalSourceExpression | traceabilityExpression
+ | alternateExpression | specializationExpression
+ | noteExpression | annotationExpression
+
+* recommend adding these as links to their production (and in general, anywhere one is mentioned it should be a link)
+
+
+
+
+
+7)
+Why are the identifiers not in a prefix?
+e.g.
+
+ "i" in wasInformedBy(i, ex:a1, ex:a2)
+
+This occurs throughout.
+And the places like "
+wasAttributedTo(e, ag)
+" don't have prefixes on other arguments.
+
+
+
+
+8)
+Ensuring spaces follow commas in the examples would help readability.
+
+
+
+9)
+Looks like we hit the RDF vs XML xsd namespace problem again:
+"xsd denotes the XML Schema namespace http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema."
+
+
+
+
+
+
+10)
+(My Turtle bias showing)
+When I define the default namespace, do I use NO colon or JUST a colon?
+I.e., is the error on the first or second entity in:
+
+container
+ default <http://example.org/0/>
+
+ entity(isThisOK)
+
+ entity(:orIsThis)
+
+end
+
+Or, another way, "Is the colon part of the prefix?" In Turtle it is not, the XML side would say it is.
+This is touched on in section 4.7.2 Identifier
+
+Can I have:
+
+container
+
+ prefix : <http://example.org/99/>
+
+ entity(:isThisOK)
+
+end
+
+
+
+
+
+11)
+Getting rid of %% QName would be nice
+
+"prov:type="ex:Programmer" %% xsd:QName"
+
+(per note "Wouldn't it be useful to introduce a literal for a qualified name? Currenlty, we have to write:")
+
+
+
+
+
+12)
+
+Why is prov:AccountEntity not just prov:Account?
+Should we rename prov:Plan to prov:PlanEntity and prov:EmptyCollection to prov:EmptyCollectionEntity ? (please, no.)
+
+
+
+
+13)
+In the example:
+
+container
+ prefix ex <http://example.org/>
+
+ entity(e2,
+
+…
+What is the namespace for e2?
+(Yes, my RDF bias shows here, sorry.)
+
+
+
+
+
+14)
+why distinguish containers and accounts?
+Why not use the container as the account, and let the container be named or unnamed?
+Is it because XML needs a root element :-)
+
+
+
+
+On Mar 29, 2012, at 9:38 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
+
+> PROV-ISSUE-332 (review-prov-n-wd5): issue to collect feedback on prov-n wd5 [prov-n]
+>
+> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/332
+>
+> Raised by: Luc Moreau
+> On product: prov-n
+>
+> When sending feedback on prov-n document wd5, please send it under this issue or individual new issues.
+>
+>
+>
+>
+>
+