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

Fwd: PROV-ISSUE-373: trim qualified from "3.2 expanded" [PROV-O HTML]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 14:56:39 -0400
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Message-Id: <78D1F5C8-722A-46BB-9203-E9BCA3195EAD@rpi.edu>
Ivan,

Thank you for pointing out the inconsistent flow.

The draft at 
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/3acc7d101d59/ontology/Overview.html#description-expanded-terms

should address your comment.

May we close the issue?

Regards,
Tim

Begin forwarded message:

> Resent-From: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-373: trim qualified from "3.2 expanded" [PROV-O HTML]
> Date: May 8, 2012 9:11:12 AM EDT
> To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
> 
> Hi, I just modified the example as suggested.
> The issue is now pending review, I think we can close it.
> 
> Best,
> Daniel
> 
> 2012/5/7 Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
> PROV-ISSUE-373: trim qualified from "3.2 expanded" [PROV-O HTML]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/373
> 
> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
> On product: PROV-O HTML
> 
> There is a nice progression from the simple ('starting point') terms via the expanded one to the qualified ones. However... in 3.2 the example uses prov:qualifiedGeneration although, at that point, the reader does not have any idea what that means. It is probably not really important in this example anyway; I would propose to remove it.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Ivan
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 18:57:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 15 May 2012 18:57:11 GMT