merge
authorTim L <lebot@rpi.edu>
Mon, 09 Jul 2012 17:44:26 -0400
changeset 3856 670572ccc56e
parent 3855 204d3c9a47a3 (current diff)
parent 3854 2123bd4623cd (diff)
child 3857 ffdbd24a6870
merge
--- /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
+   > <[email protected]>
+   > 
+   >     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
+   > 
+   > 
+   > 
+   > 
+   >