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

Reviewing outstanding issues on PAQ document.

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 12:56:41 +0100
Message-ID: <4E71E7F9.6060807@ninebynine.org>
To: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I've just gone through the outstanding issues on the PAQ document 
(http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/5), with links and brief summaries 
below.

In particular, if I don't hear any objections, I propose to close the following 
later today (this isn't irrevocable, but it does effectively remove the issues 
from active consideration by the editors):

<propose to close>

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/38
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/46
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/52
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/53
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/55
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/74
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/75
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/80

</propose to close>

========

There follows a very brief summary of how I perceive each of the outstanding 
issues.  The general situation is that I'm waiting for some conclusion to the 
discussions around the model document about "Entities", assertions, things, etc.

========

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/54
which-provenance-is-expected-to-be-retrieved

Awaiting clarification of things vs entities vs assertions discussion before 
adding new subsection to introduction explaining how these relate to access and 
query.

...

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/68
http-link-domain

Loosely related to issue 54.

Awaiting clarification of things vs entities vs assertions discussion before 
adding new subsection to introduction explaining how these relate to access and 
query.

...

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/38

Propose to close

...

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/46

Propose to close  (precise name and form of "anchor" link still under discussion 
- cf. issue 54, etc.)

...

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/52

Propose to close

...

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/53

Propose to close

...

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/55

Propose to close

...

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/74

Propose to close (but note that, in responding to issue 54, this topic may get 
revisited)

...

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/73
Use "anchor" context URI instead of introducing a "target" relationship in HTTP

Awaiting dust to settler in other areas, issue 54, etc.

...

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/75
provenance-service-and-provenance-uri

Propose to close.

...

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/76
xml-examples

Document has been reorganized per discussions, but still only placeholders for 
XML examples.

...

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/77
paq-terminology

I think most of the issues have been addressed, but we're still awaiting for a 
consensus ruling on use of the term "context".  I also think this is bound up 
with my proposed approach to add a new subsection to the introduction explaining 
how the PAQ interacts with the various provenance concepts (cf. issue 54), hence 
still awaiting clarification of model concepts.

...

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/78
contexts-and-provenance-uris

I think this is bound up with issue 54, and awaiting dust to settle on model 
concepts.

...

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/79
provenance-uri-contract

This is very much bound up with discussions about the provenance model.  Waiting 
for dust to settle.

...

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/80
about-provenance-template

Propose to close (no change to document).

========

#g
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2011 11:57:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:41 GMT