Provenance in the Context of Metrological Traceability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The proposed manuscript addresses the subject of provenance in the metrological context, and shows how documentation practices in metrological services can be interpreted retroactively in the context of the semantic web. The manuscript has the character of a state-of-the-art review and gives useful hints about expansions of semantic modelling in metrology which are required in the near future.

The content is relevant and the logics of the text is clear. I have some minor corrections for the text:

1. Introduction

Line 48: please replace "FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable)" with the more precise " FAIR data principles (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability)"

Section 2. Background ...

Line 75: I miss a logical step - I don't understand why the lack of access is a consequence of the stepwise accumulation of information. Please add an explanation, or replace "As a result" with "Nevertheless".

Lines 84-95: please separate and reassign the two references, in order to distinguish Ehrlich and Rasberry's commentary (Reference [6]) from the NIST statement (Reference [5]). Possibly highlight the phrase "metrological timelines".

Lines 98-99: The role of the "results from independent measuring systems" is not clear. Why should they be used to assess the conformity of the "already chained systems", and not vice versa? Are you describing the validation of external measurement capabilities against an existing controlled metrological chain, or an auditing process of a metrological chain against not clearly qualified external measurements?

Line 101: please replace "metrology, however," with "metrology; however," - i.e., a comma with a semicolon (greater break). Is there really a contradiction between "being a metrological scientific principle" and "existance of a practical requirement"?

Line 104: please replace "(VIM)," with "(VIM):" - i.e., a comma with a colon.

Section 3.

Lines 118-127: Tthe half paragraph "Figure 1 illustrates ... on the web" fits logically after the second paragraph "Provenance metadata ... allowing for diverse metadata records [10]".

Figure 1: "Behald" --> "Behalf". "PROV-DM Data Model" --> "PROV data model"

Lines 130 ff: I suggest highlighting typographically the terms from the PROV-DM and stressing the context again, for instance starting with:
"This data model / framework is built aroud the core classes `Entity`, `Activity` and `Agent` <typewriter font>. Entities <italics> are virtual or physical objects..."

Lines 151 ff: Please rephrase: "The core classes possess the following attributes (data properties)". Please highlight also the attributes as before, possibly lower-case, and describe them coherently (all in the singular form and either all nominally or all verbally). The definition of `label` seems wrong (it's about the label of an indivicual of a class, not about a "type or relation").

Lines 159 ff: Relations are not classes - they connect classes. Please rephrase:
"Relationships (object properties) link classes and their instances [OR simply: Agents, Entities, and Acvitivies] together. Key relations in the PROV schema are:
• wasGeneratedBy: connects an entity with the activity from which it stems out (metrological example/application: a measurement result can be generated by a calibration).
• used: connects an activity with an entity which plays a role in its occurrence (metrological example/application: a calibration activity can use a collection of working measurement standards).
• wasAssociatedWith: connects an agent to an activity it was responsible for (metrological example/application: a NMI can be associated with a report issuance).
• wasAttributedTo: connects an entity to an agent it was attributed to (metrological example/application: a calibration report can be attributed to a laboratory, or a measurement artifact can be attributed to a client)."

Lines 170 ff: "Subtypes" reminds of "Datatypes". I suggest replacing is with "subclasses" in the first line, and then precising:
• SoftwareAgent: A subclass of Agent / an Agent responsible for software execution ...
• Person: An Agent specifying an individual responsible for activities.
• Organization: An Agent specifying an organization responsible for activities or entities.
• Plan: An Entity representing a set of actions intended by agents...
• Collection: An Entity providing a structure to constituent entities...

Section 4.

Line 219: "check that" --> better: "check whether/if"

Line 250 ff: previously you introduced generically digital calibration "certificates", but from now on you speak about "the" digital calibration certificate. Please repeat the citation and possibly add a reference to the machine-readable scheme. Preferably anticipate also reference [7] (just after VIM).

Line 264 ff: Please indent the single terms one level more than the containing sections.

Line 299: better use colon, as in the following lines.

Lines 314-315: "incorporating" used twice; consider substituting one occurrence.

Line 316: sentence not clear, possibly rephrase: "attributes it to an organization, and tracks its generation through a calibration activity..."

Line 344: "of details such as the measurement scale, which defines the expression of quantity values" seems wrong. The part after the comma does not clearify what a scale is, but rather refers to "details". So either replace with a definition/examples of scale, or rephrase: "of details on the expression of quantity values, such as the scale such as the measurement scale"

Table 1:
I suggest labelling the first column "VIM/DCC Concept" for symmetry and sorting the second column according to the Entity-Activity-Agent structure shown before (or reversed, with Entity's children Collection and Plan for last).
The parent-children relationships in the second column may be represented either with slash (parent/child) or with set inclusion (child \subset parent).
Measurement Result is missing from the left column and should be added.

Line 387: "given a specified" --> better: "with a known"

Line 389: "the example" --> "this example"

Reference list

"Hackell" --> "Hackel"

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a conceptual framework for applying the W3C PROV data model to enhance metrological traceability through structured provenance metadata. The work addresses a significant challenge in metrology digitalization by proposing machine-actionable documentation of measurement processes and quality assurance activities.

The authors demonstrate comprehensive mapping of Digital Calibration Certificate (DCC) elements to PROV-DM classes, providing concrete implementation pathways. The research examines provenance from agent-centered, activity-centered, and object-centered perspectives, enabling flexible application across diverse metrological contexts. Integration with ISO/IEC 17025:2017 requirements and International Vocabulary of Metrology (VIM) terminology ensures regulatory alignment.

The manuscript lacks experimental validation of the proposed framework's effectiveness in real-world metrology applications. No quantitative evaluation of semantic interoperability improvements or processing efficiency gains. Inadequate analysis of metadata storage requirements and computational overhead.

There is no chapter conclusion.

Enhancements:

• Quantitative Validation: Implement controlled experiments comparing traditional documentation methods with PROV-based approaches.
• Execute experimental validation of the proposed framework's effectiveness in real-world metrology applications.

This manuscript presents a technically sound conceptual framework addressing critical challenges in metrological traceability digitalization. While the theoretical foundation is robust and the case studies demonstrate practical applicability, the work would benefit from enhanced experimental validation and quantitative performance assessment. The proposed approach shows significant potential for advancing semantic interoperability in metrology, warranting continued development with the recommended enhancements.

Recommendation: Accept with major revisions focusing on experimental validation and quantitative assessment of framework effectiveness.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Article is well done. I suppose, that it would be better, if there was briefly comparing the PROV model with others models.

There are many other models and approaches used to implement traceability. I would like to see a brief analysis from the author of the advantages and limitations compared to the PROV model used. For example, I think it is necessary to compare it with approaches for example: OPM, MTConnect, D-SI or CIDOC-CRM to traceability tasks, modelling or data exchange.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The paper describes how multiple aspects of metrology can be represented within the W3C PROV-DM. After a short introduction into the topic and an overview of the PROV data model, the provenance relations for metrological timelines, digital calibration certificates and calibration are stated. Moreover, the findings are applied to a gauge block calibration use case. The importance of such mappings is discussed with regard to interoperability of metrological provenance data.
The paper makes a sound contribution in the field of semantic knowledge representations in metrology. I support a publication in this journal and think that it will be of valueable interest to the audience. However, I have certain remarks regarding the manuscript that should be clarified and considered before acceptance: ## Major remarks
R01: l.3: There is only one author mentioned. However, the manuscript does at multiple places write "we" (l.11 + l.50 + l.206 + l.214 + l.217 + l.330 + l.332 + l.389) - hinting at a potentially larger than mentioned number of authors. This becomes especially obvious in l.439-442, where it is said that the presented text is an extension of an existing conference paper. I want to have clarification, whether this article has been published with the consent of the (presumably) omitted authors.
R02: l.313: Please provide a figure/diagram visualizing the graph specified in appendix A. Putting the source code in the appendix is fine.
## Minor remarks
R03: l.5: consider using a more specific term than "provenance information", e.g. "provenance vocabulary"
R04: l.10: Does your approach "improve metrological traceability"? Or does it improve the documentation of it?
R05: l.26-29: Please insert reference(s) for this sentence.
R06: l.37: To me, it looks a bit off that the reference is part of the quotation. Consider to put the reference behind the hyphen.
R07: l.41-43: Please add reference to ISO17025 (or similar) at the end of the sentence.
R08: l.84: Please introduce the acronym "NIST".
R09: l.84-85: Please explain, why you refer to the definition of Ehrlich&Rasberry and not the one in the VIM here.
R10: l.95: Please check, whether reference [5] or [6] is suited better here.
R11: l.106: see R06
R12: l.118-120: Please (again) reference PROV at the end of the sentence (reference [1]).
R13: l.120-122: I don't think that this was done. Consider rewriting or removing this sentence.
R14: l.129: This is not exactly the figure found in [1]. Please add "based on [1]" to the end of the caption. Please introduce acronym "PROV-DM".
R15: l.173: "subtype *of Agent*"
R16: l.174: "subtype *of Agent*"
R17: l.190: Consider changing the section-title to "3.5 Provenance of document editing/creation"
R18: l.249: Please provide more detail in the section title, to match the level of detail of the titles of 4.1 and 4.3
R19: l.264-288: Please add: - PROV-mappings for the top-level-DCC-element "dcc:digitalCalibrationCertificate" (probably "Entity") - PROV-mappings "dcc:administrativeData" (probably "Collection") - PROV-mappings "dcc:measurementResults" (probably "Collection") - PROV-mappings "dcc:comment" (probably "Entity") - PROV-mappings "dcc:document" (probably "Entity") - Consider indenting the bullets below the enumeration.
R20: l.295-296: Please provide more details on on the difference+differentiation between certificate provenance and measurement provenance.
R21: l.338: Please quote the specific definition of the VIM for "traceability" at the end of the sentence.
R22: l.353: I am not sure what the tangent to the CIPM MRA is doing here. Please enhance the storyline or consider removing that part.
R23: l.401: Please include a calibration certificate in figure 3 as an artifact/entity.
R24: l.445-469: Please mention that this listing is in PROV-N notation.
R25: l.471-547: see R24

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form