PR#2 for Provenance DM

[Laurent MICHEL]

Markus,

PR Process
==========
There is no deviation in the standard process. The page title have been 
fixed.


Connection with Semantic
========================
No doubt that connecting models and semantic is a good thing, but the 
way to do it is not clear to me.
An attribute with a limited set of possible values must be typed as an 
Enum. The Enum is a UML (and VO-DML) dataType which has to be defined in 
the model.
Problems come when Enum items must refer to vocabulary entries. In this 
case we have to setup a bridge between the UML and the vocabulary.

I can see 3 options:

1) Setting the attribute as a free string, putting an UML constraint on 
it and saying in the spec that the value must belong to that vocabulary.
  - this hide a model constraint in the UML
  + The vocabulary can be extended without changing the model

2) Letting the Enum in place, making sure it is consistent with the 
vocabulary and saying in the spec that the Enum is a view on the vocabulary.
  - Vocabulary extension requires a model update
  + The UML is complete

3) Using semantic URIs (e.g. http://my-vocab#author) as Enum Items.
  - Vocabulary extension requires a model update
  + No item duplication

Any comment/idea on the question?

Laurent

Le 02/09/2019 à 13:36, Markus Demleitner a écrit :
> Dear DM,
> 
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 08:43:13AM +0200, Laurent MICHEL wrote:
>> I'm pleased to announce the opening of the PR#2 process for Provenance DM.
>> - The RFC period goes from 2019 July 23 to 2019 September 03
>> - RFC page: https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/ProvenanceRFC2
> 
> I have just put in two sets of responses to the RFC page; one for
> myself (there's no *real* show-stoppers in there) an one for the
> Semantics WG[1].  The latter does contain at least one show-stopper,
> because right now we have a vocabulary associated with ProvDM that is
> definitely not publication-ready.  And that vocabulary is not
> referenced in the standard text.  This needs to be worked out one way
> or the other before Semantics can bless the standard.
> 
> We are proposing some easily implementable improvements to that
> particular situation, and beyond that suggest the adoption of the
> datalink/core vocabulary for WasGeneratedBy/@role and friends and
> XDescription/@type.  If you need some proselytising (including a
> quick introduction to term management as we think it will be) for
> that, I'd be happy to drop by in Strasbourg or Paris -- or, if
> there's enough time for that, chat about it in Groningen.
> 
> Anyway, we'll be more than happy to help resolving the points we're
> making once you decide on what way you'd like to go.
> 
>        -- Markus
> 
> [1] Incidentally, since DocStd 2
> (http://ivoa.net/documents/DocStd/20170517/), there's no separate
> "public" RFC and TCG review period any more.  I'm not sure if you're
> planning for some variation of the process, which is why I've put an
> "Early" into the header of the Semantics response in case you'll be
> issuing another PR.  Otherwise, I guess you should just fill in the
> TCG period to be 2019-07-23 to 2019-09-03.
> 

-- 
---- Laurent MICHEL              Tel  (33 0) 3 68 85 24 37
      Observatoire de Strasbourg  Fax  (33 0) 3 68 85 24 32
      11 Rue de l'Universite      Mail laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr
      67000 Strasbourg (France)   Web  http://astro.u-strasbg.fr/~michel
---