- From: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:40:37 +0000
- To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Graham, Paul, Suggestions on tidying up the PAQ document (not much): Section 1. TODO is in the text, but it not so critical here as there's no text to be intermingled with. Section 1.2, paragraph 3: "Requests for provenance about a resource may return provenance information that uses one or more entity-URIs to refer to it." - not clear what "refer to it" means (given the preceding paragraphs). Section 3.3, end: There is one TODO in a box, two not in boxes, seems untidy at least. The TODOs themselves could be expressed more clearly (do we care that readers understand what we we are aware needs to be done, or are the TODOs solely for us?) Section 4.1.2. Not clear what @@redundant... text is for, and shouldn't be intermingled in text. Section 5.3 example: Graham's probably right that there's not much better than is currently done, but I note that there is annotation within the example in case a better way is thought of. Section 8: Annotations are in the text and could be separated by putting in boxes, to be consistent with rest of document. Thanks, Simon -- Dr Simon Miles Lecturer, Department of Informatics Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK +44 (0)20 7848 1166 Provenance-based Validation of E-Science Experiments: http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1268/
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2011 16:41:07 UTC