* Reviews addressed
authorJames Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:47:59 +0100
changeset 4321 eb6bb2aa2ef1
parent 4320 ae50e5508a48
child 4322 d55c694e9994
* Reviews addressed
model/comments/issue-459-paul.txt
model/comments/issue-459-simon.txt
model/comments/issue-459-stian.txt
model/comments/issue-459-tim.txt
model/prov-constraints.html
--- a/model/comments/issue-459-paul.txt	Wed Aug 08 18:25:24 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/comments/issue-459-paul.txt	Thu Aug 09 10:47:59 2012 +0100
@@ -94,6 +94,10 @@
 
 @James, is there something you want to add here?
 
+-- I think it is fine to do it all in one pass.  The suggested
+   approach in the spec is not required as long as the end results are
+   the same.  This is now stated explicitly. --jrc
+
    > 
    > My major concern is the lack of intuition about what valid provenance
    > is. I would describe it as follows: valid provenance identifies
@@ -128,6 +132,10 @@
 
 Ordering constraints require that the directed graph from ordering statements contains no cycle containing a strictly precedes edge.
 
+-- I think this can be clarified editorially without changing the
+   technical content, by explaining the constraint generation/checking
+   paradigm we're working in. --jrc
+
 
    > 
    > Overall, I think an implementor could use some examples that show the
@@ -191,6 +199,8 @@
 I updated some of the names, but still:
 @TODO: make rule names more uniform.
 
+-- This is editorial.  --jrc
+
    > 
    > Thanks
    > Paul
--- a/model/comments/issue-459-simon.txt	Wed Aug 08 18:25:24 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/comments/issue-459-simon.txt	Thu Aug 09 10:47:59 2012 +0100
@@ -77,6 +77,9 @@
 @TODO.  
 @James: what's the resolutoin on this?
 
+This seems to reflect misunderstanding of the resolution of issue
+331.  I've added text clarifying this and asked Simon for review.  --jrc.
+
    > 
    > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/453
    > I think the document is fine as it is. The identifier is the same in
@@ -222,6 +225,8 @@
 
 @James: are you OK?
 
+-- This is OK with me.  --jrc
+
    > 
    > Misc
    > ------
@@ -266,6 +271,8 @@
 
 @James: are you ok?
 
+Yes, that looks correct.
+
    > 
    > K. Section 5.1, paragraph 1: In the example merge, I wasn't clear why
    > variables "t1" and "t2" disappeared in the merged version but "a" did
@@ -288,6 +295,8 @@
 prov-dm defines attributes as "set of attribute-value pairs "
 I would replace unordered list by set here? ok?
 
+Yes, this is done. --jrc
+
    > 
    > Typos
    > -----
--- a/model/comments/issue-459-stian.txt	Wed Aug 08 18:25:24 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/comments/issue-459-stian.txt	Thu Aug 09 10:47:59 2012 +0100
@@ -419,7 +419,7 @@
 
 Should this table / index be an appendix or something?
 
[email protected]?
[email protected] - figure
 
 17.
 
@@ -794,8 +794,13 @@
 
 This is ISSUE-454 - as the inference is related to how derivation
 optional parameters work.  Issue 454 was closed; we are determining
-whether we still need inference 12 given the current design of wasDerivedFrom.
[email protected]
+whether we still need inference 12 given the current design of
+wasDerivedFrom.  
+
+We are adding a constraint and conditional expansion rule that makes inf 12
+superfluous - basically, if the activity is specified then we can
+expand the generation and use, if it is not specified then the
+generation and use have to be unspecified also.
 
 37.
   > 
@@ -938,7 +943,12 @@
 
 ISSUE-452.  
 Yes it is, in the definition of merging.  But this needs to be
-clearer, since merging is not explained until later.  @TODO.
+clearer, since merging is not explained until later.  
+
+I plan to address this by covering the common concepts of variable,
+substitution, merging, and application of inferences clearly up front
+before we go into the details of def/inf/constraints.
+
 
 42.
    > 
--- a/model/comments/issue-459-tim.txt	Wed Aug 08 18:25:24 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/comments/issue-459-tim.txt	Thu Aug 09 10:47:59 2012 +0100
@@ -849,7 +849,11 @@
    > 
    > 
 
-This is ISSUE-452.  @TODO
+This is ISSUE-452.  
+
+The answer is that since _pl is a fresh existential variable, it can
+be instantiated with either an identifier or "-".  That is, we treat
+"-" like a constant/literal standing for "no value".
 
    > 
    > 46)
@@ -954,7 +958,7 @@
    > suggest to carry this convention into the rest of the subfigures.
    > 
 
[email protected]?
[email protected] figure
 
    > 
    > 
@@ -1227,7 +1231,7 @@
 PROV-CONSTRAINTS (in the non-normative section), if that helps.
 
 A new section 2.3 was introduced with the figure.
[email protected]: to add text
[email protected]: to add text - this is editorial.
 
 
    > 
--- a/model/prov-constraints.html	Wed Aug 08 18:25:24 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/prov-constraints.html	Thu Aug 09 10:47:59 2012 +0100
@@ -2863,7 +2863,7 @@
   </div>
 
 <div class="remark">
-  <p>This constraint, similar to constraint 38, requires the derived
+  <p>This constraint requires the derived
     entity to be generated strictly following the generation of the
     original entity. This follows from the [[PROV-DM]] definition of
     derivation: <em>A derivation is a transformation of an entity into