- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 08:44:59 +0000
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- CC: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I was about to say I don't really mind, but I fear prov-qa may be a poor option: (1) sounds like "quality assurance" (2) it might appear to prioritize query over access prov-aq as a recognizable expansion of PAQ? prov-access (since query is a form of access)? #g -- On 15/11/2011 15:36, Paul Groth wrote: > Hi Luc, > > prov-qa sounds good to me. Any other suggestions? > Paul > > Luc Moreau wrote: >> Hi Paul and Graham, >> >> Do we want to use the PROV branding for the document? >> and prov-xxx for the short name? >> >> Luc >> >> >> On 11/14/2011 08:11 PM, Paul Groth wrote: >>> Hi All, >>> >>> This is a reminder to have a look at the current PAQ to see if you >>> support it going to FPWD. >>> >>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/paq/provenance-access.html >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Paul >>> >>> >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2011 09:13:49 UTC