--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/model/comments/issue-331-Tim.txt Thu Apr 12 15:50:56 2012 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,700 @@
+ > DM editors,
+ >
+ > Please find here:
+ >
+ > * Response to your specific questions, then
+ > * Comments that follow the document.
+ >
+ > Regards,
+ > Tim
+ >
+ > ===================
+ >
+ > Editor's questions:
+ >
+ > * Can the document be released as a next public working draft? If no, what are the blocking issues?
+ >
+ > Yes-ish. Releasing the draft with the current state of
+ > specializationOf concerns me. I would be willing to let the draft go
+ > public, but would much prefer another pass here.
+ >
+ > * Is the structure of the document approved?
+ >
+ > Yes. It flows naturally.
+ >
+ > * Can the short name of the document be confirmed (in particular,
+ > for prov-n, prov-dm-constraints, since request needs to be sent
+ > for publication)?
+ >
+ > yes.
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > * If a reviewer raised some issues (closed pending review), can they be closed?
+ >
+ > If the traditional request mechanism is used and provides the raiser
+ > one more check, yes.
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > * Can all concept definitions be confirmed? Specifically,
+ > o consider ISSUE-337 on agents
+ >
+ > (yes) The treatment of agent is fine. The fact that it is an entity
+ > seems unnatural, given that it is one of the principal concepts it
+ > should not be stuck under Entity. One can make an agent an entity at
+ > any time, so we are not losing anything by keeping Agent, Entity, and
+ > Activity at the top level.
+ >
+ > *
+ >
+ >
+ > o consider ISSUE-223 on entities
+ >
+ > (yes) "An entity is a thing one wants to provide provenance for. For
+ > the purpose of this specification, things can be physical, digital,
+ > conceptual, or otherwise; things may be real or imaginary." is
+ > fine. In particular "wants to provide provenance for" is
+ > important. The breadth of entity is conveyed by the end of the
+ > definition. Entities contrast with Activities, which is another
+ > important aspect.
+ >
+ >
+ > NO, specializationOf needs help. It is NOT owl:sameAs, but seems to
+ > always drift back to something TOO close to it. "Things and Refer"
+ > should not appear in the definition. I wish the WG would stop fighting
+ > over competing detailed definitions and leave it in its abstract form
+ > for general use (and extension).
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > ==========================
+ > <> dcterms:subject <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-dm-20120402/prov-dm.html> .
+ >
+ > General comments:
+ >
+ > 1)
+ > "actities" typo
+
+Done
+ >
+ >
+ > 2)
+ > The summary "component 4: properties to link entities that refer to a same thing;" seems misleading.
+ > (Though, with the flurry of recent discussions on this, it's not clear what a better summary is)
+ >
+ > 3)
+ > odd phrasing: "which are allows users"
+
+Fixed
+ >
+ > 4)
+ > typo: "completion of the the act of producing"
+ >
+
+Fixed
+
+ > 5)
+ > Generation defintiion seems odd when split over two sentences:
+ > "This entity becomes available for usage after this generation. This entity did not exist before generation."
+ > ->
+ > "This entity did not exist before generation and becomes available for usage after this generation."
+ >
+ > 6)
+ > The following could benefit from a rephrasing:
+ > "A Web site and service selling books on the Web and the company hosting them are software agents and organizations, respectively."
+ >
+ > 7)
+ > Section 2.4 seems to be asymmetric.
+ > Attribution has one definition and example. (thus does not get as much or adequate attention compared to association)
+ > Association has two leading paragraphs (which at first reading
+ > seem like they should be supporting "attribution" and not
+ > introducing the subsequent "attribution")
+ >
+ > 8)
+ > Should tables and figures be numbered?
+ > "Table (Mapping of Provenance concepts to types and relations in PROV-DM)"
+ >
+ > 9)
+ > The following seems to be out of place, or does not link to the fulfillment of its promise:
+ > "When examining PROV-DM in details, some relations, while involving two primary elements, are shown to be nary."
+ > * Is it "in detail"?
+ > * suggest to add link to where these "detail" and "nary" are discussed later in the document.
+ >
+ > 10)
+ > It seems asymmetric that "wasInformedBy" is not part of the diagram
+ > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-dm-20120402/prov-dm.html#
+ >
+ > The diagram answers how entities can relate to entities, and agents to
+ > agents, but activities seem less primary without having their own
+ > intra-relation. (This, noting that the diagram "is not intended to be
+ > complete.") Communication occurs throughout the publication example,
+ > so it could be added.
+ >
+ >
+ > 11)
+ > The final paragraph in section 2.5 tries to tie things together, but it does not do so clearly.
+ > """
+ >
+ > Figure overview-types-and-relations is not intended to be complete. It
+ > only illustrates types and relations from Section starting-points and
+ > exploited in the example discussed in the next section. They will then
+ > be explained in detail in Section data-model-components. The third
+ > column of Table (Mapping of Provenance concepts to types and relations
+ > in PROV-DM) lists names that are part of a textual notation to write
+ > instances of the PROV-DM data model. This notation, referred to as the
+ > PROV-N notation, is outlined in the next section. """
+ >
+ > * for the intended purpose, "Section starting-points" is _this_ section (and not some other that needs to be hunted down).
+
+ > * "example discussed in the next section" provides a relative reference that could be more informative. Perhaps "following section" can help.
+ > * "They will then be explained" -> "The starting points will be explained"
+ > * Not having numbers on the sections makes it difficult to infer the organization.
+ > * The point about the third column in the table means nothing to me. Why do I care? Is this useful in PROV-N land? It's not mentioned explicitly until the following sentence (which is where it is re-introduced unnecessarily).
+ >
+ >
+ > 12)
+ > Expressions are not identified, but the following could be interpreted as such:
+ > "Most expressions have an identifier which always occur in first position"
+ > * suggest to rephrase so that the expression mentions (not has) an identifier.
+ >
+ >
+ > 13)
+ > Not sure semicolon is appropriate here:
+ > "; we then provide attribution"
+ >
+ >
+ > 14)
+ > "must also preceded by" missing a "be"?
+ >
+ > 15)
+ > Odd phrasing: "(some of which locating archived email messages"
+ >
+ > 16)
+ > suggest removing "agent" from "were published by the WWW Consortium agent"
+ > -- it sounds like some software did it.
+ >
+ >
+ > 17)
+ > Collective confusion in example
+ > * What is prefix "ar2" and "ar3" and "ar1"?
+ > * All of the numbers in the names make it hard to keep track of things (e.g. ar1:0004?)
+ > * 404: "Full details of the provenance record can be found here." -> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-dm-20120402/examples/w3c-publication1.pn
+ > * more unrecognizable prefixes: pr:RecsWD
+ > * "it happens that all entities were already Web resources, with
+ > readily available URIs, which we used" - this seems only to be true
+ > for the two reports and nothing else.
+ >
+ > * 404: "Full details of the provenance record can be found here" ->
+ > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-dm-20120402/examples/w3c-publication3.pn
+ >
+ > 18)
+ > This phrase seems to have the opposite affect of its intent:
+ > "its details differ from the author's perspective"
+ > * Perhaps "its details differ according to the asserting author"
+ >
+ > 19)
+ > Perhaps switch the two accounts in the example section. The second one is much smaller (and actually happens first).
+ > This could help readability.
+ >
+ > 20)
+ > Before section 4, the distinction between concepts and types/relations was made (to the extend of showing their mapping).
+ > Yet section 4 (titled types and relations) says "PROV-DM concepts are structured according to six components that are introduced in this section"
+ > * suggest to replace "concepts" with types and relations.
+ > * suggest to be precise about the relation between "concepts" and "types and relations" and to use then consistently.
+ >
+ >
+ > 21)
+ > Beginning of section 4:
+ > "operations related to collections."
+ > * suggest to rephrase this with examples like in component 1; mentioning insertion and removal.
+ >
+ >
+ > 22)
+ > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-dm-20120402/prov-dm.html#prov-dm-concepts-and-relations
+ > * suggest adding a textual indicator for the component (to readability, and to avoid potential accessibility issues for visually impaired).
+ > * Also, the color code does not exist on the same page (one must scroll up to see it).
+ >
+ > 23)
+ > Second column for Collection seems odd in
+ > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-dm-20120402/prov-dm.html#prov-dm-concepts-and-relations
+ >
+ > 24)
+ > "The attributes ex:version is" -> "The attribute ex:version is"
+ >
+ >
+ > 25)
+ > Why is:
+ > """
+ >
+ > wasGeneratedBy(e1,a1, 2001-10-26T21:32:52, [ex:port="p1"])
+ > wasGeneratedBy(e2,a1, 2001-10-26T10:00:00, [ex:port="p2"])
+ >
+ > """
+ > not:
+ >
+ > wasGeneratedBy(-,e1,a1, 2001-10-26T21:32:52, [ex:port="p1"])
+ > wasGeneratedBy(-,e2,a1, 2001-10-26T10:00:00, [ex:port="p2"])
+ >
+ > Is there an exception to the "- rule"?
+ >
+ >
+ > 26)
+ >
+ > What started in this phrase: "Any usage or generation involving an activity follows its start."
+ >
+ > * suggest rephrasing to make it clear that the activity is the thing starting.
+ >
+ > * perhaps "Any usage or generation by an activity must follow the activity's start"
+ >
+ > * similar comment for definition of End
+ >
+ >
+ > 27)
+ >
+ > For Start's example:
+ >
+ > "if the activity happens to consume the message content" could safely be removed for clarity. (the "regarded as an input" covers it more clearly)
+
+ >
+ > 28)
+ >
+ > Should "wasAttributedTo(ex:foot_race,ex:DarthVader)" be "wasAttributedTo(ex:bang,ex:DarthVader)" ?
+ >
+ >
+ > 29)
+ >
+ > Regarding: "Consider two long running services, which we represent by activities s1 and s2."
+ >
+ > It seems odd that services are considered activities. Should they not be agents that perform more granular activities?
+ >
+
+ > * perhaps this example could be replaced to avoid yet another computer
+ > example: the "fine paying; check writing; mailing" activity was
+ > informed by the "traffic stop" activity. The implicit entity is a
+ > traffic ticket that had a notice of fine, amount, and payment
+ > mailing address.
+
+
+ >
+ > 30)
+ >
+ > Start by Activity continues to be an outlier in this model. It's just a simple case of communication.
+ >
+ > Recommend to drop start by activity.
+ >
+ > https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/340
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 31)
+ >
+ > Is http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-dm-20120402/prov-dm.html#figure-component2
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > legitimate UML that can be interpreted by anybody outside of DM? Why
+ > isn't wasAssociatedWith class relating to Activity and Agent (like an
+ > ERD would do)?
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 32)
+ >
+ > "are responsible in some way for the activity to take place"
+ >
+ > -> "are responsible in some way for the activity that took take place"
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 33)
+ >
+ > The "length > 1" connotation here concerns me:
+ >
+ > "id: an optional identifier for the responsibility chain;"
+ >
+ > It seems to suggest that multiple one-step responsibilities should point to their aggregation, which I don't believe is the case.
+ >
+ > * suggest to rephrase to "responsibility link [between subordinate and responsible]"
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 34)
+ >
+ > suggest "attribute-value pairs that describe the modalities of this relation."
+ >
+ > -> "attribute-value pairs that describe the modalities of this responsibility link."
+ >
+ >
+ > 35)
+ >
+ > "and a funder agents" -> "and a funder agent"
+ >
+ > "has an contractual agreement" -> "has a contractual agreement"
+ >
+ >
+ > 36)
+ >
+ > should responsibility example include:
+ >
+ > wasAssociatedWith(a,ag3) ?
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 37)
+ >
+ > section 4.3:
+ >
+ > "and subtypes of derivations" -> "subtypes of derivations"
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 36)
+ >
+ > Similar to previous, is the binary augmentation shown in
+ >
+ > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-dm-20120402/prov-dm.html#figure-component3
+ >
+ > a convention known by anybody? It is very difficult to interpret.
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 37) 4.3.1
+ >
+ > The "build up" discussed for adding details about derivation is very nice.
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 38)
+ >
+ > It is difficult to follow
+ >
+ > wasDerivedFrom(e2, e1, a, g2, u1)
+ > wasGeneratedBy(g2, e2, a, -)
+ > used(u1, a, e1, -)
+ >
+ >
+ > and the paragraph. Perhaps a simple diagram would help follow. (but then this would be inconsistent with other definitions…)
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 39)
+ > 4.3.2
+ > "responsibility: an optional identifier (ag) for the agent who approved the newer entity as a variant of the older;"
+ >
+ > ^^^ this seems more appropriately modeled as an account, not stuck as part of the underlying model.
+ >
+ > Revision should "just be", and if one wants to know who says "it just is", we should use accounts to answer.
+ >
+ >
+ > The same experience that we used to remove "agent asserting an account" from "account" should be reapplied to this parameter as well.
+ >
+ > https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/341
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 40)
+ >
+ > Glad to see the "all" in "A quotation is the repeat of (some or all of) an entity"
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 41)
+ >
+ > The phrases:
+ >
+ > "Quotation is a particular case of derivation in which"
+ >
+ > and
+ >
+ > "An original source relation is a particular case of derivation
+ > that"
+ >
+ > are very instructive.
+ >
+ >
+ > but this is not done for Revision.
+ >
+ > * recommend to add this kind of phrase to revision section.
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 42) (Thanks for all the fish…)
+ >
+
+ > "Let us consider the current section dm:term-original-source,"
+ > seems to describe the concrete form, when in fact you're talking
+ > about the notions described by the section.
+ >
+ > * suggest to rephrase to something like "Let us consider the concept described in the current section"
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 43)
+ >
+ > "and the Google page go:credit-where-credit-is-due.html, where the notion was originally described."
+ >
+ > suggest to += "(to the knowledge of the authors)"
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 44)
+ >
+ > should "Derivation and association are particular cases of traceability."
+ >
+ > be "Derivation and _attribution_ are particular cases of traceability." ?
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 45)
+ >
+ > "w3:Consortium or to
+ > pr:rec-advance." -" w3:Consortium _and_ to pr:rec-advance."
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 46)
+ >
+ > "Wherever two people describe the provenance of a same thing,
+ > one cannot expect them to coordinate and agree on the identifiers to use to denote that thing."
+ >
+ > * we are nose diving back to owl:sameAs with this ^^
+ >
+ > * The example is reasonable (date-specific URI versus non)
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 47)
+ >
+ > "To allow for identifiers to be chosen freely and independently by each user, the PROV data model introduces relations
+ > that allow entities to be linked together.
+ > The following two relations are introduced for expressing specialized or alternate entities."
+ >
+
+ > ^^ this does not convey the "levels of detail" aspect well enough
+ > - it emphasizes too much on the "choose your own URI" wild west of
+ > the web.
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 48)
+ >
+ > References and Things should not be involved in defining
+ > specialization. We've just pushed the "Thing vs. Entity" argument into
+ > specialization.
+ >
+ > "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. The common thing do not need to be
+ > identified. "
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 49)
+ >
+ > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-dm-20120402/prov-dm.html#figure-component5
+ >
+ > has old naming "derivation-by-removal" which was renamed to simpler "removal"
+ >
+ > (or, if it's not "old", I recommend renaming it)
+ >
+ > Though, I may just be confused on this (qualified vs. unqualified). Perhaps disregard this comment.
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 50)
+ >
+ > "and is a generic indexing mechanisms" -> "and is a generic indexing mechanism"
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 51)
+ >
+ > "and more (the specification of such specialized structures in terms of key-value pairs is out of the scope of this document)"
+ >
+ > -> "and more. The specification of such specialized structures in terms of key-value pairs is out of the scope of this document."
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 52)
+ >
+ > suggest mentioning the word "replacement" in the sentence:
+ >
+ > "Insertion provides an "update semantics" for the keys that are already
+ >
+ > present in the collection, as illustrated by the following example. "
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 53)
+ > "This is reflected in the constraints listed in Part II." seems to warrant a link.
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 54)
+ > first example in annotations
+ >
+ > "The note's identifier and attributes are declared in a separate namespace denoted by prefix ex2."
+ >
+ > ^^^ This seems to be insinuating some best practice without explaining
+ > why they are in different namespaces. It can lead to questions that
+ > each requires a can of worms.
+ >
+ > The namespace of the attributes should NOT be in the same namespace as the instance.
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 55)
+ > second example in annotations
+ >
+ > ex3:n2 should NOT be in same namespace as ex3:reputation
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 56)
+ >
+ > I'll point out _again_ that Notes are a bad way to model
+ > derivations of provenance; that is what accounts are for. If you
+ > want to use this shortcut in your design - fine. But don't
+ > advocate the impoverished design in the recommendation itself --
+ > snuck in via an example.
+ >
+
+It is not forgotten. It's ISSUE-260.
+
+Simply I had no time to work on it.
+To address your point, we need an agreed notion of account.
+
+It is unclear to me whether this is equivalent to a derivation of provenance.
+
+Account and notes are on the chair's chopping list.
+
+
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 57)
+ >
+ > "The interpretation of any attribute declared in another namespace is out of scope."
+ >
+ > ^^ does this refer to attributes mentioned in this document?
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 58)
+ > please add links to the appropriate sections for the contexts mentioned in:
+ >
+
+ > "The attribute prov:role denotes the function of an entity with
+ > respect to an activity, in the context of a usage, generation,
+ > association, start, and end"
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 59)
+ > Please add links to the appropriate sections for the attributes in:
+ > "The PROV-DM namespace declares a set of reserved attributes catering for extensibility: type, role, location."
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 60)
+ > Please explicitly cite the parts in:
+ > "must preserve the semantics specified in the PROV-DM documents (part 1 to 3)."
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 61)
+
+ >
+ >
+ > This is inaccurate from the AWWW perspective: "One needs to ensure
+ > that provenance descriptions for the latter document remain valid as
+ > denoted resources change." What may change is the representation
+ > returned when the resource's denotation (i.e., URI) is requested.
+ > This, in turn, may mislead consumers to a referent distinct from that
+ > originally intended by the author of the denotation. The resource
+ > didn't change, one's interpretation of what was written changes.
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 62) typo: "mechanism for blundling up provenance"
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > 63)
+ > awkward wording: "as well as constraint that structurally well-formed descriptions are expected to satisfy."
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ > On Mar 29, 2012, at 9:36 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
+ >
+ > > PROV-ISSUE-331 (review-dm-wd5): issue to collect feedback on prov-dm wd5 [prov-dm]
+ > >
+ > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/331
+ > >
+ > > Raised by: Luc Moreau
+ > > On product: prov-dm
+ > >
+ > > When sending feedback, please send it under this issue or individual new issues.
+ > >
+ > >
+ > >
+ > >
+ >
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
+DM editors,
+
+
+On Apr 10, 2012, at 6:26 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
+
+> DM editors,
+>
+> Please find here:
+>
+> * Response to your specific questions, then
+> * Comments that follow the document.
+>
+> Regards,
+> Tim
+>
+> ===================
+>
+> Editor's questions:
+>
+> * Can the document be released as a next public working draft? If no, what are the blocking issues?
+>
+> Yes-ish. Releasing the draft with the current state of specializationOf concerns me. I would be willing to let the draft go public, but would much prefer another pass here.
+
+
+If the definition of specialization changes to the following, I can change my response to a resounding "YES, RELEASE !".
+4.4.1 Specialization
+"An entity is a specialization of another if they describe some common thing but the former is a more constrained entity than the latter. The common thing does not need to be identified."
+
+-Tim
+
+
+
+
+