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

Re: [provo] Issues still open, raised and pending against the provo html

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:52:19 -0400
Cc: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>, Daniel Garijo <dgarijov@gmail.com>, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>, "Mike Lang, Jr." <mikelangjr@revelytix.com>, Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <3198D7FF-74B9-405B-B58C-E93BE7DF2A83@rpi.edu>
To: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
Thanks, Khalid!

-Tim

On Mar 12, 2012, at 2:43 PM, Khalid Belhajjame wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> As agreed during today's telecon, I went through the issues against the provo-html [1].
> Below is the outcome.
> 
> - ISSUE-117: General Comments On Ontology Document.
> *Suggested action: leave it open*
> This issue should not be closed yet, and its content should be considered again when/after having a first draft with the new structure of the provo HTML. In particular, we (provo team) need to make sure that  the motivations used in the provo HTML document are in line with those specified in the charter.  That said, I think the second main comment in this issue was already dealt with in the new suggested structure, as we will not be defining extensions within the HTML document, and rather move such details to the Best Practices document.
> 
> - ISSUE-119 (vanilla-rdf): How does vanilla RDF work with PROV Ontology [Formal Model]
> *Suggested action: close it.*
> I sent an email to Paul (of-course with a CC to the mailinglist) to see if he is happy to close this issue.
> 
> - ISSUE-128: Location example uses a filesystem and not a geographical location
> *Suggested action: leave it open*
> We should not close this issue. We need to make sure that if an example is used to illustrate location, then we avoid the use of a file path as an example.
> 
> - ISSUE-227: Diagrams are not consistent in prov-o html
> *Suggested action: leave it open*
> Although we will be using different diagrams in the next draft of the provo HTML, leaving this issue open will help us check that the diagram produced are consistent with each other.
> 
> - ISSUE-250: respond to Eric's comments
> *Suggested action: leave it open*
> I think that we should not close this issue. Just like with issue-117, this issue is still useful as it will allow us to make sure that some links are embedded within the document, etc.
> 
> -ISSUE-270: automate HTML for OWL constructs
> *Suggested action: close it, It was closed by Tim)*
> Given that we seem to agree on this, I sent an email to Tim who raised the issue to see if he would be happy to close the issue.
> 
> -ISSUE-282 (TLebo): no RDF/XML in PROV-O HTML; use Turtle [Ontology]
> *Suggested action: close it, It was closed by Tim*
> I sent an email to Tim, to see if we can close this issue. I think that we all agree that turtle is better, and given that the suggestion came from Ivan, it seems that we should go for it.
> 
> - ISSUE-308: PROV-O HTML much conform to W3C Style
> *Suggested action: leave it open*
> Tim thinks that it is a good idea to leave this issue open until the document is released, which I think makes sense.
> 
> Thanks, khalid
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/10
> 
Received on Monday, 12 March 2012 18:53:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:58 GMT