W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-comments@w3.org > November 2012

Re: PROV-WG response to comments on constraints

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 19:13:52 +0100
Message-ID: <5092BBE0.1080403@emse.fr>
To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
CC: public-prov-comments@w3.org
Thank you for your response. I will take a close attention to your 
comments in the following days. I expect to go back to this on Monday 
only, though. Again, sorry I sent this after the Last Call deadline.

Best,
AZ

Le 01/11/2012 18:27, James Cheney a écrit :
> Hi Antoine,
>
> I'm writing on behalf of the Provenance Working Group with the group's
> response to your feedback. Paul Groth, who handled your comment
> originally, is traveling at the moment.
>
> Thanks for your active engagement with helping improve W3C PROV. We have
> taken a look at your comment, in the email archived here.
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Oct/0004.html
>
> Because your detailed feedback reflected a number of different concerns,
> we created several tracked sub-issues on the PROV-CONSTRAINTS document:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/576
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/577
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/578
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/579
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/580
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/581
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/582
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/583
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/584
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/585
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/586
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/587
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/588
>
> As you may be aware, the formal response period for PROV-CONSTRAINTS
> ended on October 10, and your comments were submitted after that time;
> nevertheless, we have made an effort to address each of your comments,
> either by making changes to the document, or by providing more detailed
> justification for the design decisions we have made.  You can find our
> responses here:
>
> # 1.6.2 ISSUE-576 (logical definition and comments on prov-constraints)
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-576_.28logical_definition_and_comments_on_prov-constraints.29>
> # 1.6.3 ISSUE-582 (document-instance)
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-582_.28document-instance.29>
> # 1.6.4 ISSUE-586 (toplevel-bundle-description)
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-586_.28toplevel-bundle-description.29>
> # 1.6.5 ISSUE-587 (rdf-analogies)
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-587_.28rdf-analogies.29>
> # 1.6.6 ISSUE-588 (strictly-precedes-irreflexive)
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-588_.28strictly-precedes-irreflexive.29>
> # 1.6.7 ISSUE-584 (merging)
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-584_.28merging.29>
> # 1.6.8 ISSUE-579 (declarative-fol-specification)
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-579_.28declarative-fol-specification.29>
> # 1.6.9 ISSUE-585 (applying-satisfying-constraints)
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-585_.28applying-satisfying-constraints.29>
> # 1.6.10 ISSUE-583 (equivalent-instances-in-bundles)
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-583_.28equivalent-instances-in-bundles.29>
> # 1.6.11 ISSUE-580 (drop-syntactic-sugar-definitions)
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-580_.28drop-syntactic-sugar-definitions.29>
> # 1.6.12 ISSUE-577 (valid-vs-consistent)
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-577_.28valid-vs-consistent.29>
> # 1.6.13 ISSUE-578 (equivalence)
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-578_.28equivalence.29>
> # 1.6.14 ISSUE-581 (avoid-specifying-algorithm)
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-581_.28avoid-specifying-algorithm.29>
>
> The changes are reflected in the current editor's draft, which also
> contains a summary of changes since the Last Call Working Draft:
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/diff-c.html
>
> Please note, in particular, that ISSUE-579 has been transferred to the
> PROV-SEM document, since our planned resolution to this issue is to
> include the suggested first-order axiomatization in PROV-SEM.  We have
> made a start at giving the first-order axiomatization explicitly as part
> of the current draft of PROV-SEM, which is here:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsLC#Axiomatization
>
> We naturally would welcome your feedback on PROV-SEM as it progresses
> (the group plans to release it as a "Note" complementing the
> recommendations).
>
> As part of the W3C process, for each issue, we need to have an
> acknowledgement from you that our responses resolve your comment(s) or
> if not a bit of description as to why. Could you please provide this for us?
>
> Thanks again for all your help,
> --James
>
>
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>


-- 
Antoine Zimmermann
ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol
École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne
158 cours Fauriel
42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
France
Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Thursday, 1 November 2012 18:15:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 1 November 2012 18:15:07 GMT