--- a/model/comments/issue-331-Satya.txt Mon Apr 16 08:36:27 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/comments/issue-331-Satya.txt Mon Apr 16 08:58:01 2012 +0100
@@ -1,72 +1,230 @@
-Hi DM Editors,
-Overall, the document is easier to read and conceptually accesible as compared to previous versions (though the initial sections are bit long and it takes time to reach the actual constructs).
-
-Please note that, I am raising issues for WD5 that may partial overlap with previously raised issues - but as we discussed earlier while closing previous issues I am treating WD5 as new unconnected DM version.
+ > Hi DM Editors,
+ >
+ > Overall, the document is easier to read and conceptually accesible as
+ > compared to previous versions (though the initial sections are bit
+ > long and it takes time to reach the actual constructs).
+ >
+ >
+ > Please note that, I am raising issues for WD5 that may partial overlap
+ > with previously raised issues - but as we discussed earlier while
+ > closing previous issues I am treating WD5 as new unconnected DM
+ > version.
+ >
+ > ---------------------
+ > My detailed comments:
+ > Section 2.2:
+ > 1. The definition of "derivation" states "transformation", "construction, "update" of an entity - but the example for derivation includes "transportation of a work of art from London to New York" - how is change of geographical location of art piece a transformation of the art piece?
----------------------
-My detailed comments:
-Section 2.2:
-1. The definition of "derivation" states "transformation", "construction, "update" of an entity - but the example for derivation includes "transportation of a work of art from London to New York" - how is change of geographical location of art piece a transformation of the art piece?
-2.The definition of "collection" and "account" is not clear - collection is defined as "structure to some constituents, which are themselves entities" and account is defined as "contains bundles of provenance descriptions". Since provenance descriptions are also entities (from provenance of provenance) - then effectively account is same as collection?
+This has already been discussed
-Section 3.1 and 3.2:
-1. The examples describing generation of "tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215" is not clear - the identifier refers to either the "second working draft" (which requires approval by W3C) or a technical report (which can be result of edit1, but is not a "second working draft" without W3C approval? Hence, either two sets of ids should be used for two distinct entities or they can only be generated by a single activity (as I believe is stated in constraints).
+It changes the situation of the work of art:
+from
+ location="London"
+to
+ location="NY"
+
+ > 2.The definition of "collection" and "account" is not clear -
+ > collection is defined as "structure to some constituents, which are
+ > themselves entities" and account is defined as "contains bundles of
+ > provenance descriptions". Since provenance descriptions are also
+ > entities (from provenance of provenance) - then effectively account is
+ > same as collection?
+ >
+ >
+This has been discussed many times.
+
+Provenance descriptions are not identifiable ... so difficult to make them entities.
+The mechanism to identify description is to bundle them up in a named account.
+
+ > Section 3.1 and 3.2:
+ >
+ > 1. The examples describing generation of "tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215" is
+ > not clear - the identifier refers to either the "second working draft"
+ > (which requires approval by W3C) or a technical report (which can be
+ > result of edit1, but is not a "second working draft" without W3C
+ > approval? Hence, either two sets of ids should be used for two
+ > distinct entities or they can only be generated by a single activity
+(as I believe is stated in constraints).
+
+TODO: check the text. It's a single document/resource.
+
Section4:
1. The statement "The fourth component consists of relations linking entities somehow referring to a same thing." is ambiguous - suggestion is to remove "somehow"
-Section 4.1.3:
-1. If the property "wasGeneratedBy" is by definition describing the "production of new entity by an activity", then how can activity be optional? The example "wasGeneratedBy(e,-,2001-10-26T21:32:52)" makes little sense since we know that entity e is present hence it was generated by some activity, but the provenance assertion with property wasGeneratedBy is superfluous - the more informative assertion will be wasGeneratedAt?
-
-This ties in with the issue of making activity mandatory for Usage in Section 4.1.4.
-
-Section 4.1.5 and 4.1.6:
-1. The term "trigger" has not defined before. Is "trigger" as type of entity or activity or agent?
-As defined for "wasStartedBy" and "wasEndedBy", the "trigger" is responsible for (change in) activity, hence it satisfied the definition of agent - is it just a specific type of agent?
-
-Section 4.1.8:
-1. Similar to the previous point, if an activity is responsible for start of another activity, then it satisfies the requirement for being an agent. The example uses "computer processes" a1 and a2 which are "software agents" as defined in Section 4.2.1?
-
-Section 4.2.1:
-1. Include "legal" along with "social" since a company is a legal organization.
-
-Section 4.2.3:
-1. The property wasAssociatedWith is by definition describing the assignment of responsibility to an agent for an activity", but if the agent is optional, then what does the assertion "wasAssociatedWith(ex:a, -) convey? If the agent is not known then there is no need for the assertion describing an association between activity and agent - under the open world assumption, there can always be an agent associated with the activity.
-2. Is the plan can be associated with an agent or an activity - in case of a process specification (e.g. processor in taverna) or an entity - iphone or building (for the last two they are independent of an agent).
-
-Section 4.3.2:
-1. If the agent in wasRevisionOf optional, then wasRevisionOf(tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215, tr:WD-prov-dm-20111018, -) is same as wasDerivedFrom(tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215, tr:WD-prov-dm-20111018), hence redundant. Either agent should be mandatory or it should be dropped.
-
-Section 4.3.3:
-1. Similarly to above point, if quoterAgent and originalAgent are optional, the wasQuotedFrom(dm:bl-dagstuhl,wp:thoughts-from-the-dagstuhl-principles-of-provenance-workshop/, - ) is same as wasDerivedFrom(dm:bl-dagstuhl,wp:thoughts-from-the-dagstuhl-principles-of-provenance-workshop/,-), hence redundant. Agent need to be mandatory for wasQuotedFrom.
+OK
-Section 4.3.5:
-1. What is the difference between tracedTo(dm:term-original-source,go:credit-where-credit-is-due.html) and hadOriginalSource(dm:term-original-source,go:credit-where-credit-is-due.html)?
-2. What is meant by "Derivation and association are particular cases of traceability."? Association is between agent and activity, while tracedTo is defined to be between two entities? Further, Section 4.3 states that "subtypes of derivations Revision, Quotation, Original Source, and Traceability" - so what is subtype of what?
-
-Section 4.4:
-1. The statement "An entity is a specialization of another if they refer to some common thing but the former is a more constrained entity than the latter." is not clear - entity don't refer to (common) thing - they are the "thing"? What does "constrained" mean?
-2. "The common thing do not need to be identified." - then how is it known that two entities are referring to the common thing if the common thing itself is not known?
-3. The example specializationOf(ex:bbcNews2012-03-23, bbc:news/) is not clear - how is a http redirect a specialization? What common entity are they referring to?
-
-Section 4.5:
-Similar issues as above, I will raise it against the ongoing specialization thread. Also, the example is incorrect "alternateOf(tr:WD-prov-dm-20111018,tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215)" how is the second working draft an alternate of the first WD - can we replace WD2 with WD1 (maybe in an activity) and get the same result?
+ > Section 4.1.3:
+ >
+ > 1. If the property "wasGeneratedBy" is by definition describing the
+ > "production of new entity by an activity", then how can activity be
+ > optional? The example "wasGeneratedBy(e,-,2001-10-26T21:32:52)" makes
+ > little sense since we know that entity e is present hence it was
+ > generated by some activity, but the provenance assertion with property
+ > wasGeneratedBy is superfluous - the more informative assertion will be
+ > wasGeneratedAt?
-Section MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "4.7.4.2" claiming to be 4.7.4.2:
-1. Location is not covered by either XSD or RDF specification (from Section 4.7.5)?
-
-Minor:
-Section 4.2.4:
-1. Use "superior" instead of "responsible" for actedOnBehalfOf
+It may not be specified, but it is existentially implied. This aspect
+is covered in prov-dm-constraints.
------------
-
-I believe the primary issue with WD5 are specialization and alternate constructs and they need to be resolved before release.
+ >
+ > This ties in with the issue of making activity mandatory for Usage in Section 4.1.4.
+ >
+ > Section 4.1.5 and 4.1.6:
+ > 1. The term "trigger" has not defined before. Is "trigger" as type of entity or activity or agent?
+ >
-Thanks.
+The term trigger is defined there. It's an entity.
-Best,
-Satya
+
+ > As defined for "wasStartedBy" and "wasEndedBy", the "trigger" is
+ > responsible for (change in) activity, hence it satisfied the
+ > definition of agent - is it just a specific type of agent?
+
+The definition of trigger does not mention responsibility.
+Agent implies responsibility.
+
+ > Section 4.1.8:
+ >
+ > 1. Similar to the previous point, if an activity is responsible for
+ > start of another activity, then it satisfies the requirement for being
+ > an agent. The example uses "computer processes" a1 and a2 which are
+ > "software agents" as defined in Section 4.2.1?
+
+But you would have to add wasAssociatedWith/wasAttributedTo link entity/activity to agent.
+
+ >
+ > Section 4.2.1:
+ > 1. Include "legal" along with "social" since a company is a legal organization.
+ >
+
+ok
+
+ > Section 4.2.3:
+ >
+ >
+ > 1. The property wasAssociatedWith is by definition describing the
+ > assignment of responsibility to an agent for an activity", but if the
+ > agent is optional, then what does the assertion
+ > "wasAssociatedWith(ex:a, -) convey? If the agent is not known then
+ > there is no need for the assertion describing an association between
+ > activity and agent - under the open world assumption, there can always
+ > be an agent associated with the activity.
+
+It's existentially implied. See part II.
+
+ >
+ > 2. Is the plan can be associated with an agent or an activity - in
+ > case of a process specification (e.g. processor in taverna) or an
+ > entity - iphone or building (for the last two they are independent of
+ > an agent).
+ >
+
+I am not sure what the question?
+
+ > Section 4.3.2:
+
+ > 1. If the agent in wasRevisionOf optional, then
+ >
+ > wasRevisionOf(tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215, tr:WD-prov-dm-20111018, -) is
+ > same as wasDerivedFrom(tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215,
+ > tr:WD-prov-dm-20111018), hence redundant. Either agent should be
+ > mandatory or it should be dropped.
+
+
+wasRevisionOf(tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215, tr:WD-prov-dm-20111018, -)
+implies
+wasDerivedFrom(tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215, tr:WD-prov-dm-20111018)
+
+but not the converse. it's a sub-relation.
+
+ >
+ > Section 4.3.3:
+
+ > 1. Similarly to above point, if quoterAgent and originalAgent are
+ > optional, the
+ > wasQuotedFrom(dm:bl-dagstuhl,wp:thoughts-from-the-dagstuhl-principles-of-provenance-workshop/,
+ > - ) is same as
+ > wasDerivedFrom(dm:bl-dagstuhl,wp:thoughts-from-the-dagstuhl-principles-of-provenance-workshop/,-),
+ > hence redundant. Agent need to be mandatory for wasQuotedFrom.
+ >
+
+Same
+
+ > Section 4.3.5:
+ >
+ > 1. What is the difference between
+ > tracedTo(dm:term-original-source,go:credit-where-credit-is-due.html)
+ > and
+ > hadOriginalSource(dm:term-original-source,go:credit-where-credit-is-due.html)?
+
+hadOriginalSource(dm:term-original-source,go:credit-where-credit-is-due.html)
+implies
+wasDerivedFrom(dm:term-original-source,go:credit-where-credit-is-due.html)
+which implies
+tracedTo(dm:term-original-source,go:credit-where-credit-is-due.html)
+
+ >
+ > 2. What is meant by "Derivation and association are particular cases
+ > of traceability."? Association is between agent and activity, while
+ > tracedTo is defined to be between two entities? Further, Section 4.3
+ > states that "subtypes of derivations Revision, Quotation, Original
+ > Source, and Traceability" - so what is subtype of what?
+
+TODO: to check with new defintion of agent!!!
+
+ >
+ > Section 4.4:
+ >
+ > 1. The statement "An entity is a specialization of another if they
+ > refer to some common thing but the former is a more constrained entity
+ > than the latter." is not clear - entity don't refer to (common) thing
+ > - they are the "thing"? What does "constrained" mean?
+ >
+ > 2. "The common thing do not need to be identified." - then how is it
+ > known that two entities are referring to the common thing if the
+ > common thing itself is not known?
+
+It's not explicit, it's up to the asserter
+
+ >
+ > 3. The example specializationOf(ex:bbcNews2012-03-23, bbc:news/) is
+ > not clear - how is a http redirect a specialization? What common
+ > entity are they referring to?
+
+????
+ redirect? it's a resource!
+
+ >
+ > Section 4.5:
+
+ > Similar issues as above, I will raise it against the ongoing
+ > specialization thread. Also, the example is incorrect
+ > "alternateOf(tr:WD-prov-dm-20111018,tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215)" how is
+ > the second working draft an alternate of the first WD - can we replace
+ > WD2 with WD1 (maybe in an activity) and get the same result?
+
+Ability to sustitute is not the intent of alternate.
+
+ >
+ > Section MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "4.7.4.2" claiming to be 4.7.4.2:
+ > 1. Location is not covered by either XSD or RDF specification (from Section 4.7.5)?
+ >
+ > Minor:
+ > Section 4.2.4:
+ > 1. Use "superior" instead of "responsible" for actedOnBehalfOf
+ >
+ > -----------
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > I believe the primary issue with WD5 are specialization and alternate
+ > constructs and they need to be resolved before release.
+ >
+ > Thanks.
+ >
+ > Best,
+ > Satya