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

Re: Review prov-aq

From: Olaf Hartig <hartig@informatik.hu-berlin.de>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 22:46:45 +0200
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <3236548.1dQsDr44Mf@porty2>
Hey Graham,

On Thursday 26 April 2012 13:34:30 Graham Klyne wrote:
> Olaf,
> 
> Many thanks for this... very helpful comments as usual.
> 
> I've applied most of them verbatim.  For a couple I've taken a slightly
> different route that I think respects the substance of the comments.

I checked them and I'm happy with the way you phrased them. Thanks.

Best,
Olaf

 
> (This message refers to just non-issue comments, I'm dealing with the raised
> issues separately)
> 
> #g
> --
> 
> On 20/04/2012 11:12, Olaf Hartig wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > Here's my review of the latest revision of prov-aq. I answer the three
> > review questions first, before I point out some (mostly editorial) issues
> > in the document.
> > 
> > Q1 Is this ready for release as a working draft?
> > 
> > Given the editorial issues listed below are addressed (which shouldn't be
> > too difficult), I would say: Yes, it is.
> > 
> > Q2 Is the service specification now meeting expectations?
> > 
> > Very good. I like the simplification. Good job, Paul!
> > 
> > Q3 Are additions or modifications necessary?
> > 
> > Some modifications: For those things that might be a bit more
> > controversial or elaborate I raised issues (namely: ISSUE-358 ISSUE-359
> > ISSUE-360 and ISSUE-361). Furthermore, I propose to address the following
> > editorial issues (since I consider them non-controversial I didn't raise
> > official issues for them; feel free to do so, if you think it's
> > necessary):
> > 
> > 1) Subsection 'PROV Family of Specifications' under 'Status of This
> > Document' says in the 1st bullet point: "PROV-DM, the PROV data model for
> > provenance (this document)," - The part in parentheses should be moved to
> > the PAQ bullet point.
> > 
> > 2) In the definition of 'Constrained resource' (Sec.1.1):  s/An
> > constrained/A constrained/
> > 
> > 3) Sec.1.2, para 1:  s/listing restaurants/listing of restaurants/
> > 
> > 4) Sec.1.2, para 1:  s/the weather forecast for London/a weather forecast
> > for London/
> > 
> > 5) The following sentence in Sec.1.2 is strange: "Separate URIs for each
> > individual revision would also have target-uris, each denoting the
> > specification at a particular stage in its development."  I guess this is
> > meant to be:  "... would be target-uris," instead.
> > 
> > 6) The first sentence in Sec.1.3 is "Provenance information describes
> > relationships between resources, including activities and agents." This
> > sentence is confusing: The first part is too general because it seems to
> > include all kinds of relationships, not just provenance-related
> > relationships. For the second part it is not clear whether the
> > description (or relationships) may include activities and agents or
> > activities and agents are considered as resources. I propose to remove
> > the whole sentence altogether.
> > 
> > 7) The second to last sentence in Sec.2 is a bit strange. I propose to
> > remove "either at a URI or within a Service"
> > 
> > 8) Sec.3, para 1:  s/If this is known/If this URI is known/
> > 
> > 9) Sec.3, para 3:  It's not clear what the word "This" in the last
> > sentence
> > refers to.
> > 
> > 10) Sec.3.1:  s/If no anchor link/If no anchor parameter/
> > 
> > 11) Sec.3.1.1, para 1:  s/about the document/about the resource/
> > 
> > 12) Sec.3.2:  s/element specifies an specifies an identifier/element
> > specifies an identifier/
> > 
> > 13) Sec.3.2 last para is: "If no "anchor" link element is provided then
> > the
> > target-uri is assumed to be the URI of the document. It is recommended
> > that
> > this convention be used only when the document is static and has an
> > easily-
> > determined URI."  It should be specified what is meant by
> > "easily-determined URI".
> > 
> > 14) Sec.5:  s/the URI of a SPARQL endpoint (or, to use the SPARQL
> > specification language, a SPARQL protocol service)./the URI of a SPARQL
> > protocol service (often referred to as a "SPARQL endpoint")./
> > 
> > 15) Sec.5.1:  s/has an target-uri/has a target-uri/
> > 
> > 16) Before Sec.5.1.1 I propose to add the following sentence: "The
> > following subsections illustrate use cases for querying a SPARQL-based
> > provenance query service."
> > 
> > 17) Sec.5.2.1, bullet point 1: "For a given resource (target-uri-1)
> > retrieve ..."  Shouldn't that be "resource-uri" instead of
> > "target-uri-1"?
> > 
> > 
> > Best,
> > Olaf
Received on Saturday, 28 April 2012 20:47:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 28 April 2012 20:47:19 GMT