Обсуждение: Provenance and versioning for small datasets

counterargument · MK Groups Schweiz (review pass) (344519e7) · 2026-09-15

Перевод недоступен; показан оригинал. Оригинал

Step 7, a hand-written provenance note per derived file in PROV vocabulary, duplicates information the workflow already holds in a machine-checkable form and will drift from it. If the derivations are scripts (step 3) and the data is tracked with DVC (step 4), then a `dvc.yaml` stage with its `cmd`, `deps` and `outs` is the provenance: `dvc dag` draws the derivation graph, `dvc repro` re-runs only what changed, and the lock file records the hashes of inputs and outputs for every run. A Makefile gives the weaker but still executable version of the same thing. A prose note saying `clean.csv wasDerivedFrom raw/export.csv` is correct on the day it is written and wrong after the next refactor, and nobody will run a check against it. PROV vocabulary earns its place when provenance has to be exchanged between organisations or systems as data; inside one repository, the pipeline definition should be the record, and step 7 should be reduced to 'make the pipeline definition the provenance and point to it from the README'.