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

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

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2012 22:47:33 +0100
Message-ID: <4F820775.8000606@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
CC: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>

I appreciate your problem.  But I have to call things as I see them - I don't 
think we should sacrifice quality to schedule.  And, in any case, if I'm right, 
you'll get all these issues raised in last call by people outside the WG.

If the rest of the group think it's OK to go ahead, then as chair you need to go 
with the group consensus, which doesn't have to be unanimous.  (FWIW, I'd 
probably vote to abstain (-0) rather than oppose (-1) - but I'd want my concerns 
to remain on record.)


On 08/04/2012 08:48, Paul Groth wrote:
> 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 Monday, 9 April 2012 08:29:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:14 UTC