Re: [PAQ] editorial issues

Hey,

Just to close this thread: Yes, the latest version of the PAQ document 
addresses all the (editorial) issues I raised earlier.

Olaf


On Thursday 04 August 2011 14:10:30 Graham Klyne wrote:
> Olaf Hartig wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > In the following I list some editorial issues regarding the PAQ document.
> > I didn't open ISSUEs because these things are easy to implement and they
> > are not controversial (at least, I hope so).
> > If I should open ISSUEs nonetheless, please let me know.
> > 
> > (1) Section 3, paragraph 1, last sentence -- I would explicitly mention
> > here that each of the different parties uses a different provenance URI
> > for their account.
> 
> Done.
> 
> > (2) Section 3, paragraph 1, last sentence -- I would add the following
> > sentence:
> > It cannot be assumed that the provenance information provided by one
> > party does not contradict the provenance information provided by another
> > party.
> 
> Done (in paraphrase.)
> 
> > (3) Section 3, paragraph 2, first sentence -- I would add
> > 
> >    "... refering to the provenance of the provided resource."
> 
> Done.
> 
> > (4) Section 3.1, paragraph 1, first sentence -- That doesn't seem to be a
> > sentence, actually.
> 
> Er, yes.  I actually dislike using references as nouns in sentences, but
> there I go...  and yes, it is rather clumsy.
> 
> Reworked.
> 
> > (5) Section 3.1, paragraph 2, first sentence -- s/provence/provenance
> 
> Done.
> 
> > (6) Section 3.1, example -- That's not an example but a "pattern"
> 
> I suppose it is.  I've changed to ReSpec class to pattern and hacked up
> some alternate CSS for now.  We may want to revisit the presentation
> detail later.
> 
> > (7) Section 3.1, paragraph 3, first sentence -- What does
> > 
> >           "[...] provenance-URI is the URI of a provenance resource
> >           
> >                 for which information is returned."
> > 
> > mean? More precisely, what does the "which" refer to? And, how is this
> > information returned (as part of the successfull HTTP response)?
> 
> Simplified: "... indicates that <code><cite>provenance-URI</cite></code> is
> the URI of some provenance for the requested resource."
> 
> > (8) The titles of Section 3.2 and 3.3 is not consistent with the
> > corresponding bullet points in Section 3: either representation and
> > represented or presentation and presented.
> 
> OK - I've gone with "presented" for now.
> 
> > (9) Section 3.2, paragraph 1, first sentence -- Similar to (4).
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> > (10) Section 3.4 -- I suggest to use the term "provenance registration
> > service" instead of "provenance information service" here because the
> > third- party service we are talking about in this section does not
> > provide provenance information itself; it is just some kind of a look-up
> > service (or index).
> 
> This is now section 4 - I had my section nesting messed up.
> 
> I've gone with just "provenance service" for now.  This section is due to
> be reworked to use a different approach, so I propose to leave it there
> for now.
> 
> > (11) The whole document is inconsistent in how it calls what we want to
> > access. Sometimes it uses "provenance information", sometimes "provenance
> > data", and sometimes just "provenance". For instance, section 2 contains
> > all three. The document should be consistent and, thus, use only a
> > single term. I don't know whether the Model TF agrees on something that
> > we may adopt here. If not, I suggest "provenance description".
> 
> Yes.  I personally would select just "provenance".  But pending a WG
> consensus I'll lodge this as an issue against PAQ to be revisited later.
> 
> Raised as http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/70
> 
> That's it, I think.
> 
> Thanks for the feedback.
> 
> #g

Received on Thursday, 18 August 2011 19:57:14 UTC