W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > April 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-336 (provo-2WD-feedback): Incorporate WG feedback into PROV-O 2WD [Ontology]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 16:58:26 -0400
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4C1E188F-8F2D-4075-87E5-E22B18BD0491@rpi.edu>
To: "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Hi, Simon.

The first link in the abstract points to the OWL: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl

Regards,
Tim

On Apr 3, 2012, at 9:56 AM, Miles, Simon wrote:

> Hello Tim, PROV-O team,
> 
> I assume from the questions below that we should be reviewing the OWL as well as the HTML. Can you tell me which OWL file it is we should be looking at? Sorry if it should be obvious...
> 
> thanks,
> Simon
> 
> Dr Simon Miles
> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
> 
> Requirements for Provenance on the Web:
> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1399/
> ________________________________________
> From: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker [sysbot+tracker@w3.org]
> Sent: 02 April 2012 21:04
> To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: PROV-ISSUE-336 (provo-2WD-feedback): Incorporate WG feedback into PROV-O 2WD [Ontology]
> 
> PROV-ISSUE-336 (provo-2WD-feedback): Incorporate WG feedback into PROV-O 2WD [Ontology]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/336
> 
> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
> On product: Ontology
> 
> Luc, Paul, Simon, Sam, and MacTed,
> 
> You and the rest of the working group are welcome to review and provide feedback for the internal 2WD draft located at:
> 
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/spwd/for-internal-wg-review/prov-o.html
> 
> 
> 
> Per http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.03.29#PROV-O
> please consider the following questions in your feedback:
> 
> Questions to be reviewed for:
> 
> * Does the HTML file provide an adequate overview of the OWL design elements?
> * Do the different organizations of PROV-O HTML and DM complement each other, or is it distracting?
> * Would any additional comments (or attributes) help you read the cross reference list in PROV-O HTML?
> * Are the comments within the OWL file adequate to familiarize with the structure? If not, what kinds of comments would help?
> * Should the OWL file contain any links to documentation (e.g., to the DM, to examples, etc.)?
> * Can the document be released as a next public working draft? If no, what are the blocking issues?
> 
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2012 20:58:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:07:03 GMT