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

Re: prov-dm, prov-n, prov-constraints preliminary staging

From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 17:06:17 +0000
Message-ID: <50AFAD09.8080703@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
CC: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On 21/11/2012 12:58, Luc Moreau wrote:>
 > Hi all,
 >
 > Given that our CR-track documents should be frozen by Monday, it would
 > be useful to have a few pairs of eyes checking the preliminary staged
 > versions of the specs.

I'm skimming PROV-DM:

Intro: do we drop the "editors latest draft" link in the document header for an 
actual published document?

Section 1.4 (namespaces/prefixes):  is this really non-normative?  I'd have 
thought the information here is needed to properly interpret some of the 
normative material.

Should section 4.2 have a "non-normative" annotation?  4.3?  (section 4.1 does). 
  On reflection, I'd suggest dropping the annotation from 4.1 as there's already 
one for section 4.

Section 5.6: if I'm reading the diagram notation correctly, this indicates that 
EmptyCollection is a subtype of Collection.  (That would imply it can have 
HadMember relations with other Entities.)  Normally, I would expect it to be an 
*instance* of Collection.  In the usage here, I'd expect it to be a related 
type, but not a subtype.  I didn't follow the discussions of containers, so I 
don't know what is the motivation for including an EmptyCollection type.

Section 7: why bullet points?  I'd suggest dropping these and just having 3 
paragraphs.

Appendix A.  In it's current form, the cross reference links to PROV-N are not 
working.  Same for PROV-O.  This may be an artifact of the staging, but I think 
this should be checked carefully as the document moves to publication.

Appendix B:  Should this (change-log) remain for the CR publication?

References:  it seems strange to me that we have a normative reference to 
RFC3987, but none to RFC3986.

PROV-OVERVIEW link broken (probably a staging artifact)

#g
--


On 21/11/2012 12:58, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Given that our CR-track documents should be frozen by Monday, it would
> be useful to have a few pairs of eyes checking the preliminary staged
> versions of the specs.
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/CR-prov-dm-20121211/Overview.html
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/CR-prov-n-20121211/Overview.html
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/CR-prov-constraints-20121211/Overview.html
>
>
> Known issues:
> - text about CR exit criteria, implementation report, etc needs to be added to
> intro.
> - documents use dated URL where they will be published, so dangling links.
>
> Can you let us know if you can spare a few minutes glancing at the documents,
> providing
> any feedback on potential bugs and/or typos.
>
> Luc
>
> PS. I am not aware that prov-o is ready yet
>
>
Received on Friday, 23 November 2012 17:12:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 23 November 2012 17:12:28 GMT