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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-331: feedback on PROV-Dm WD5

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 09:48:07 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRr-J9bXeTZSJG6irhtXAYi+Z+t-kS+GMo_qW8Q06YjmHg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Graham,

Just to say that in terms of schedule, we have this release and then
the last call. At least that was the plan.

We'll have to see what other reviewers and the group as a whole stay.
Also, we need to see what the editor's have to say in terms of time to
respond to your comments.

I would like to figure out how we can divide the work so that we can
keep on our schedule i.e. what needs to be addressed for this WD and
what can be left till the revisions before last call. My general
feeling is:

- WD5: address any issues with constructs and "easy" editorial issues now an
- LC: all open issues

Cheers
Paul

On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Yes, it's largely a document/text quality thing - I feel it doesn't entirely lay
> things out clearly enough for its target audience, and in some cases is actively
> confusing.  This may be "editorial", but I think it's important enough to need
> addressing to move forwards towards LC.  There are a few points of substance
> (mainly stuff that feels superfluous to me), but I wouldn't be surprised to be
> lone voice on that.
>
> I've indicated a number of specific points points in the "details" part of my
> email, with suggested alternative phrasing, though there are many more (similar
> to those I detail) that I've skipped over in passing.
>
> #g
> --
>
>
> On 06/04/2012 21:36, Paul Groth wrote:
>> Hi Graham,
>>
>> Just for clarification, given that you think prov-dm is not ready for
>> release, it's important to understand what exactly could be done to
>> get it to the point where it is.
>>
>> Reading through your points, it seems to me that your comments are
>> primarily editorial, in that it's the explanation, definition and
>> organization of the terms that is the issue. Is that a correct
>> interpretation?
>>
>> If not, can you identify the specific things that would need to be
>> addressed for us to move forward on prov-dm?
>>
>> Regards
>> Paul
>>
Received on Sunday, 8 April 2012 07:48:49 GMT

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