W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > July 2011

Re: Access plan for next 3 months

From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 16:09:27 +0100
Message-ID: <4E1C63A7.2050309@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Sandro,

I have an action to move a document to the W3C site: 
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/30

The document is currently at 
http://imageweb.zoo.ox.ac.uk/pub/2011/provenance/ReSpec/provenance-access.html

I'm very keen that the document should be managed via some SCM facility, which I 
believe W3C do use for document production.  If there's any choice, I'd prefer 
it be Mercurial or Git rather than SVN.

Can you please advise (or provide link to advice) how I might proceed?

Thanks.

#g
--

Simon Miles wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> This is just to clarify the overall plan for the provenance access
> work over the next 3 months, especially for those who were absent from
> the F2F.
> 
> * We are aiming for a single draft proposal regarding some aspects of
> access ready for month 6 (3 months from now), to accompany the
> required model deliverables [1].
> 
> * We will iterate over and raise issues with a single document with
> one consistent view (as opposed to a list of competing proposals).
> This will evolve into the draft proposal.
> 
> * As Graham has already produced such a starting document, we decided
> to begin from that and asked him to move it to the Wiki [2].
> 
> * Once transferred to the Wiki, we will raise issues with the
> proposal, e.g. where important cases are not adequately covered, using
> the issue tracker. Issues regarding inadequacy should, ideally,
> explain where it does not cover what is required by reference to the
> scenario we defined in the F2F1 [3]. Tim has kindly elaborated this
> with data relating to the journalism example.
> 
> * In particular, it would be good for those who made proposals in the
> F2F1 document, to raise issues which illustrate the salient
> differences of their proposal with the current draft [4].
> 
> If you have any comments on this plan, please raise them by email.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Deliverables
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/30
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1_Access_and_Query_Proposal
> 
> Thanks,
> Simon
> 
Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2011 15:15:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:37 GMT