--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/links/comments/review-graham.txt Mon Apr 08 21:34:22 2013 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+> On 28/03/2013 10:55, Luc Moreau wrote:
+> >
+> > Dear all,
+> >
+> > I made an editorial pass over prov-links.
+> >
+> > The staged version, in its final NOTE form, is available from:
+> > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/links/releases/NOTE-prov-links-20130430/Overview.html
+> >
+> >
+> > It is now ready for internal review. We will assign reviewers today during the
+> > call.
+> Reviewing at the above link (retrieved 20130328 at about 14:45 UK time)
+>
+> ...
+>
+> Section 1, para 2:
+>
+> "... therefore, provenance of provenance is itself a critical aspect of an
+> information infrastructure such as the Web."
+>
+> This seems to me like a rather strong claim. (The web got on quite well so far
+> without it ;) )
+>
+> Suggest something like: "... therefore, provenance of provenance is itself an
+> important aspect of establishing trust in an information infrastructure such as
+> the Web."
+
+Done
+>
+> ...
+>
+> Section 1, para 2:
+>
+> "These blobs of provenance descriptions are independent of each other, ..."
+> seems to me a strange thing to say, as I don't think total independence as
+> implied is intended or particularly useful. Suggest: "These blobs of provenance
+> descriptions stand independently of each other, ..."
+>
+> ...
+
+Done
+
+>
+> Section 5
+>
+> I'm not understanding the motivation or purpose of the constraint
+>
+> IF mentionOf(e, e1, b1) and mentionOf(e, e2, b2), THEN e1=e2 and b1=b2.
+>
+> e.g. It seems to me that if bundle b1 has specializationOf(e1, e2) or
+> mentionOf(e1, e2, b2) then it would make sense for e to be a specialization of
+> distinct entities e1 and e2.
+>
+> Rather than just e1 = e2, is it not sufficient to allow:
+>
+> specializationOf(e1,e2) OR specializationOf(e2,e1) OR e1 = e2
+>
+> ?
+
+
+The reason for this constraint is the rdf encoding in two separate properties.
+
+With a ternary relation, we could express
+ mentionOf(e, e1, b1) and mentionOf(e, e2, b2).
+
+In rdf, we would have
+ e prov:mentionOf e1
+ e prov:asInBundle b1
+ e prov:mentionOf e2
+ e prov:asInBundle b2
+
+which would allow us to express
+ mentionOf(e, e1, b2) and mentionOf(e, e2, b1)
+but nothing requires e1 to be described in b2 and e2 in b1.
+
+>
+> ...
+>
+> I think this document is fine for release as a NOTE, but as a parting shot I'll
+> reiterate that I'm not seeing what is said by mentionOf(e1, e2, b) that would
+> not be covered by separate statements:
+>
+> specializationOf(e1, e2)
+> prov:has_provenance(e2, b)
+>
+
+The key difference is that we have no indication that b is a new fixed
+aspect of e1 and other additional aspects of e1 may have been computed
+using the description of e2 in b.
+
--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/links/comments/review-khalid.txt Mon Apr 08 21:34:22 2013 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+>
+> Hi Luc and Tim,
+>
+> I read the Linking Across Provenance Bundles document, and here are
+> some comments that I hope will be helpful
+>
+> Best, khalid
+> ------------
+>
+> C1. In the fourth paragraph, you state that "It is the capability of
+> referring to the description of the entity, as created by the producer
+> in this specific bundle, that is of interest to us in this
+> specification." Some text that explains why you are interested in
+> doing so, may help the reader follow.
+>
+> C2. The second paragraph in Section 2 states that "Some applications
+> may want to augment the descriptions of entity e1 found in bundle b
+> with other information. They cannot add these descriptions to bundle b
+> since this would result in a different bundle." Here too, it may not
+> be clear for the reader what the problem in creating a new bundle 2.
+>
+> C3. I think that the introduction as well as the beginning of Section
+> 2, where the concept of Mention is introduced, as a bit dry, in the
+> sense that they are not accompanied by examples that can help the
+> reader follows the argument or understand how mentionOf is used. In
+> this respect, Example 1 can be introduced earlier and used as a means
+> of motivating the need for a construct like mentionOf in the beginning
+> of Section 2.
+>
+> C4. In the second paragraph in Section 2, "found in bundle b" ->
+> "found in a bundle b". Later on in the same section, "the entity e1
+> may described" -> "the entity e1 may be described"
+>
+> C5. I found Example 2 slightly difficult to follow. In particular,
+> the reader is not taken through the first turtle excerpt, which
+> contains both the specification of the bundle obs:bundle1, and
+> provenance records specifying the provenance of such a bundle as a
+> whole. In example 2, "it may useful" -> "it may be useful"
+>
+>
+> On 28 March 2013 10:55, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
+> >
+> > Dear all,
+> >
+> > I made an editorial pass over prov-links.
+> >
+> > The staged version, in its final NOTE form, is available from:
+> > ps://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/links/releases/NOTE-prov-links-20130430/Overview.html
+> >
+> > It is now ready for internal review. We will assign reviewers today during
+> > the
+> > call.
+> >
+> > Cheers,
+> > Luc
+> >
+> > --
+> > Professor Luc Moreau
+> > Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487
+> > University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865
+> > Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
+> > United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
+> >
+> >
--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/links/comments/review-simon.txt Mon Apr 08 21:34:22 2013 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,183 @@
+>
+>
+> Hello Luc, Tim,
+>
+>
+>
+> Please find my review of PROV-Links below.
+>
+>
+>
+> In general, it is a good, clear document. I'm still not sold on the appropr=
+> iateness of the solution, but I'll hold my tongue on that :-)
+>
+>
+>
+> Section 1
+> ---------
+>
+> 3rd paragraph:
+>
+>
+>
+> I got rather lost in the first two sentences. The first sentence refers to =
+> a party that creates "some data and its provenance", and a consumer. The se=
+> cond sentence ends by referring to "another producer". I assume this is a t=
+> hird actor, but couldn't see how it fitted together. I think it just needs =
+> disentangling or rephrasing.
+>
+>
+
+OK, I have added (consumer) and (producer) in the first sentence.
+
+>
+> Later in the same paragraph: "the description as created by the producer in=
+> situ, i.e. in its bundle". It hasn't been said before this point that the =
+> producer has put its provenance into a bundle.
+
+
+OK, I have added "For this to work, this specification assume that provenance created by the producer is contained in a bundle, so that others such as the consumer, can refer to it, by means of the bundle identifier."
+
+
+>
+>
+>
+> 4th paragraph:
+>
+>
+>
+> "as created by the producer in this specific bundle". I think "this" should=
+> be "a" (otherwise it is not clear which bundle you are referring to). You =
+> might consider italicising "specific bundle" to retain the emphasis that I =
+> think "this" was meant to convey.
+
+OK, done.
+
+>
+>
+>
+> 5th paragraph:
+>
+>
+>
+> While most of the section is clear, it doesn't seem explained at all here w=
+> hy one entity is a specialization of the other. This aspect seems to requir=
+> e quite an in-depth knowledge of PROV to appreciate, so a brief intuition w=
+> ould be very helpful.
+
+The previous paragraph already referred to "specialize it"
+... allowing the consumer to add their own view to it. I feel that
+this is sufficient for intuition, but an explicit reference to
+specialziaiton has been added.
+
+
+
+>
+>
+>
+> Section 2
+> ---------
+>
+>
+> Typo a little above Example 1: "The entity e1 may described"
+>
+>
+>
+> Example 2 text: "rendered by a visualisation tool" ("visualisation" needs t=
+> o be Americanized)
+>
+>
+>
+> Section 3
+> ---------
+>
+>
+> The text accompanying property prov:mentionOf talks about its use in conjun=
+> ction with the other property. Shouldn't there also be a definition/descrip=
+> tion of the meaning of the property itself? What does prov:mentionOf mean w=
+> hen asserted?
+>
+>
+>
+> thanks,
+>
+> Simon
+>
+>
+>
+> Dr Simon Miles
+>
+> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
+>
+> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+>
+> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
+>
+>
+>
+> Evolutionary Testing of Autonomous Software Agents:
+>
+> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1370/
+>
+>
+>
+> ________________________________________
+>
+> From: Luc Moreau [l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
+>
+> Sent: 28 March 2013 10:55
+>
+> To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
+>
+> Subject: prov-links ready for review
+>
+>
+>
+> Dear all,
+>
+>
+>
+> I made an editorial pass over prov-links.
+>
+>
+>
+> The staged version, in its final NOTE form, is available from:
+>
+> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/links/releases/NOTE-prov-links=
+> -20130430/Overview.html
+>
+>
+>
+> It is now ready for internal review. We will assign reviewers today
+>
+> during the
+>
+> call.
+>
+>
+>
+> Cheers,
+>
+> Luc
+>
+>
+>
+> --
+>
+> Professor Luc Moreau
+>
+> Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487
+>
+> University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865
+>
+> Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
+>
+> United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
+>
+>
+>
+>
+
+
+
+
--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/links/comments/review-tom.txt Mon Apr 08 21:34:22 2013 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+> Hello Luc and Tim,
+>
+> Included below is my review of PROV-Links (latest ED)
+>
+> It's a very good document, and I could hardly find anything I didn't like.
+> After considering the minor adjustments below, I believe the document is
+> ready to be published as a Note.
+>
+> Minor things:
+> 1. Introduction
+> - In the 2nd paragraph: you mention "blobs" of provenance twice. I'm not a
+> real fan of this term, as it implies the bundle to be a "binary large
+> object", which implies that it is somehow black box, which is not the case,
+> preferably. On the contrary, the whole concept of mention is there to
+> provide context about the specialized entity. Changing this to "sets of
+> provenance" or "named sets of provenance" is clearer in my opinion, and
+> consistent with the PROV-DM definition.
+> - I assume this note will be dropped in the final document? "The concept
+> Mention<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/links/prov-links.html#concept-mention>is
+> experimental, and for this reason was not defined in PROV
+> recommendation-track documents. The Provenance Working Group is seeking
+> feedback from the community on its usefulness in practical scenarios. "
+>
+> 2. Conceptual Definition
+> - I was confused by the following paragraph:
+>
+> > Let us consider a bundle and the expression specializationOf(e2,e1)
+> > occuring in this bundle. The entity e1 may described in multiple other
+> > bundle bi. From specializationOf(e2,e1), one cannot infer
+> > prov:mentionOf(e2,e1,b) for a given b, since it is unknown which bi's
+> > descriptions were used to computed additional aspects of e2. Hence,
+> > prov:mentionOf has to be asserted.
+> >
+> I don't see the added value of this paragraph. It seems to explain the
+> merit of having mentionOf again, whereas that is already clear from the
+> previous text. Personally, I was confused by it when I wasn't before I read
+> it. Was it put here after a review?
+> If you do decide to keep it, it seems strange for me to put this here. I
+> would either put it lower, together with the examples, or drop it.
+> If you do keep it, there is a small typo in "multiple other bundle bi" (the
+> 's' of bundles is missing).
+>
+> 3. Ontological Definition
+> the text "When :x prov:mentionOf :y and :y is described in Bundle :b, the
+> triple :x prov:asInBundle :b is also asserted to cite the Bundle in which
+> :y was described." appears in both PROV-O definitions. This seems a bit
+> arbitrary and copy-pasted. A suggestion would be to polish this to:
+>
+> > Property: prov:mentionOf
+> >
+> > IRI:http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#mentionOf
+> >
+> > prov:mentionOf of is used to specialize an entity as described in another
+> > bundle, so it's provenance can be augmented in this bundle. prov:asInBundle
+> > is used to cite the Bundle in which the generalization was mentioned.
+> >
+> and
+>
+> > Property: prov:asInBundle
+> >
+> > IRI:http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#asInBundle
+> >
+> > prov:asInBundle is used to specify which bundle the general entity of a
+> > prov:mentionOf statement is described.
+> > When :x prov:mentionOf :y and :y is described in Bundle :b, the triple :x
+> > prov:asInBundle :b is also asserted to cite the Bundle in which :y was
+> > described.
+> >
+>
+> Or something similar to make it just that tad bit cleaner.
+>
+> And that is it. Great job on this document!
+>
+> Regards,
+> Tom
+>
+>
--- a/links/prov-links.html Mon Apr 08 10:33:21 2013 +0100
+++ b/links/prov-links.html Mon Apr 08 21:34:22 2013 +0100
@@ -786,12 +786,13 @@
represented in various ways, and interchanged between systems across the Web.
</p>
-<p>The provenance of information is crucial in deciding whether information is to be trusted, how it should be integrated with other diverse information sources, and how to give credit to its originators when reusing it. To support this, provenance itself should be trusted, and therefore, provenance of provenance is itself a critical aspect of an information infrastructure such as the Web. To this end, PROV introduces the concept of <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-dm-20130430/#concept-bundle">Bundle</a>: defined as a named set of provenance descriptions; it is a mechanism by which provenance of provenance can be expressed (see also <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-o-20130430/#Bundle">Bundle</a> [[PROV-O]], <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-n-20130430/#prod-bundle">Bundle</a> [[PROV-N]] and <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-prov-xml-20130430/#term-Bundle">Bundle</a> [[PROV-XML]]). With bundles, blobs of provenance descriptions can be given names and can themselves be regarded as entities, whose provenance can in turn be described using PROV. These blobs of provenance descriptions are independent of each other, as formalized by [[PROV-CONSTRAINTS]] which determines their <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-constraints-20130430/#bundle-constraints">validity</a> by examining them in isolation of each other. </p>
+<p>The provenance of information is crucial in deciding whether information is to be trusted, how it should be integrated with other diverse information sources, and how to give credit to its originators when reusing it. To support this, provenance itself should be trusted, and therefore, provenance of provenance is itself an important aspect of establishing trust in an information infrastructure such as the Web. To this end, PROV introduces the concept of <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-dm-20130430/#concept-bundle">Bundle</a>: defined as a named set of provenance descriptions; it is a mechanism by which provenance of provenance can be expressed (see also <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-o-20130430/#Bundle">Bundle</a> [[PROV-O]], <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-n-20130430/#prod-bundle">Bundle</a> [[PROV-N]] and <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-prov-xml-20130430/#term-Bundle">Bundle</a> [[PROV-XML]]). With bundles, blobs of provenance descriptions can be given names and can themselves be regarded as entities, whose provenance can in turn be described using PROV. These blobs of provenance descriptions stand independently of each other, as formalized by [[PROV-CONSTRAINTS]] which determines their <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-constraints-20130430/#bundle-constraints">validity</a> by examining them in isolation of each other. </p>
-<p>In a distributed environment, it is common to encounter applications that involve multiple parties: it is a common situation that some party creates some data and its provenance, whereas another party consumes the data and its provenance. In such a situation, the consumer, when it in turn generates provenance, often wants to augment the descriptions of entities generated by another producer. For the consumer, it is not suitable to repeat the provenance created by the producer, and augment it according to their need. Instead, a consumer wants to <em>refer</em> to the description as created by the producer <em>in situ</em>, i.e. in its bundle, and <em>specialize it</em>, allowing the consumer to add their own view on this entity. Such a capability would allow parties to "stitch together" provenance descriptions that would otherwise be disconnected.</p>
+<p>In a distributed environment, it is common to encounter applications that involve multiple parties: it is a common situation that some party (a producer) creates some data and its provenance, whereas another party (a consumer) consumes the data and its provenance. In such a situation, the consumer, when it in turn generates provenance, often wants to augment the descriptions of entities generated by the
+ producer. For the consumer, it is not suitable to repeat the provenance created by the producer, and augment it according to their need. Instead, a consumer wants to <em>refer</em> to the description as created by the producer <em>in situ</em> and <em>specialize it</em>, allowing the consumer to add their own view on this entity. (The notion of <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-dm-20130430/#concept-specialization">specialization</a> is defined in [[PROV-DM]].) Such a capability would allow parties to "stitch together" provenance descriptions that would otherwise be disconnected. For this to work, this specification assume that provenance created by the producer is contained in a bundle, so that others such as the consumer, can refer to it, by means of the bundle identifier. </p>
-<p>While URIs are the Web mechanism by which entities can be assigned identities, URIs alone are not sufficient for our purpose. Indeed, the entity produced by the producer is given a URI, but the same entity, with the same URI, could also be described in other bundles, by this producer or third parties. It is the capability of referring to the description of the entity, as created by the producer in this specific bundle, that is of interest to us in this specification. </p>
+<p>While URIs are the Web mechanism by which entities can be assigned identities, URIs alone are not sufficient for our purpose. Indeed, the entity produced by the producer is given a URI, but the same entity, with the same URI, could also be described in other bundles, by this producer or third parties. It is the capability of referring to the description of the entity, as created by the producer in a <em>specific bundle</em>, that is of interest to us in this specification. </p>
<p>This specification introduces a new concept <a>Mention</a> allowing an entity to be described as the specialization of another entity, itself described in another bundle. This specification provides not only a conceptual definition of <a>Mention</a>, but also the corresponding ontological, schema, and notational definitions, for the various representations of PROV. It also includes constraints that apply to this construct specifically. It is our aim to promote interoperability by defining <a>Mention</a> conceptually and in the representations of PROV.</p>