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

Re: links across specs

From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:43:36 +0100
Cc: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C2236847-DDF5-4810-B335-EA3DAD9063CA@inf.ed.ac.uk>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Hi Luc,

I see: you were not suggesting getting rid of the links in both directions, which is what I thought you were suggesting.

I had in mind that the targets in the formal model should be kept up to date with the data model, i.e. the targets of the links should be copies of the constraints, plus (eventually) description/details of how the formal model realizes the constraint.

I also had in mind that as new constraints are added, they should be issued ids and copied into the formal model so that the formal model authors don't lose track of them.

I guess I did not explain this before to you (we had only discussed it on the formal model call), and I haven't been keeping things updated myself.

We don't need links from the data model document to the formal model (or vice versa), but I don't see why it hurts either - this way one can click on the link in the data model constraint to see how it is formalized.

Since I'm not the editor of either document, however, it is up to you and Satya to decide what goes where.

--James

On Sep 23, 2011, at 2:28 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> 
> Hi James,
> 
> I don't understand the point of links *from* the data model document to the formal model document,
> since the link target is a copy of (an old version of) a constraint that appears in the data model document.
> It would make more sense if links appeared in the formal model document.
> 
> In addition, all  constraints have been named, and can be linked using these names.
> 
> What do you think?
> Cheers,
> Luc
> 
> On 23/09/2011 13:41, James Cheney wrote:
>> I don't see why we could not have links between the two documents, if they're helpful.  Is it a W3C formatting requirement, or a logistical / presentation requirement?
>> 
>> Have they been helpful so far?  To my knowledge, we have not yet started associating the informal constraints in the DM with their formalizations in the FM, but this still seems like a worthwhile thing to do.
>> 
>> I would also think that having numbers to refer to the constraints will be helpful in managing external issues raised against them.  (since the numbers should be persistent even if the section numbers change)
>> 
>> It seems like the only obvious options are keep them, find  way to "filter" them out of the published draft, or delete them and not bother with this in the future.  If they're not helpful, then they should go.  If they're helpful, then why not keep them in the working drafts.
>> 
>> --James
>> 
>> On Sep 23, 2011, at 12:32 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>> 
>>   
>>> Hi James and Satya,
>>> 
>>> There are a series of links from Data model document to Formal model documents, regarding
>>> constraints to be satisfied.
>>> 
>>> I don't think these can stay for FPWD.
>>> 
>>> What do you want to do with them?
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Luc
>>> 
>>> 
>>>     
>> 
>>   
> 
> 


-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Friday, 23 September 2011 13:44:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:42 GMT