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

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

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:53:43 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|dd52bcc01cabfab5ac7ad0672fcb77daoAOHy508l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|50B25B27.7060809@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Thanks Simon.
Luc


On 25/11/12 17:17, Miles, Simon wrote:
> Hello Luc,
>
> As promised in the telecon, I've quickly checked through a sample of the links in the DM document and the references. I found just a few matters:
>
> In Table 3, just above Section 3, the links to Sections 5.2 and 5.3 are switched round (the former links to 5.3, the latter to 5.2).
>
> In Example 18, the link text says Section 5.7.4.4, but it directs to 5.7.2.4.
>
> Should we put a warning that the [UML] reference links to a PDF document?
>
> thanks,
> Simon
>
> Dr Simon Miles
> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
>
> Modelling the Provenance of Data in Autonomous Systems:
> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1264/
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Miles, Simon [simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk]
> Sent: 22 November 2012 15:53
> To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: prov-dm, prov-n, prov-constraints preliminary staging
>
> Hello Luc,
>
> I have read through the staged DM document. It all looks fine, but I notice a few typos and similar:
>
> Section 1 intro, component 5 in list of components: "refer to a same thing" does not make sense, and should be "refer to the same thing" or "refer to a common thing".
>
> Section 2.1, Example 5: "in this case, a car in Boston may be a different entity from a car in Cambridge". To clarify, do you mean "the same car in Cambridge"?
>
> Section 2.3, Derivation row in table: "about derivations and its subtypes" - conjugation error
>
> Section 4.2, second paragraph: "refer archived email messages" - missing "to"
>
> Section 4.2, Figure 3: I notice the links to the plan aren't labelled. Should they say "hadPlan"? Or does an edge from an edge to an entity always denote a plan relation, so it doesn't need stating?
>
> Section 5.1.6, first sentence: "known as trigger" - missing "the"
>
> Section 5.16, Example 24: "In this example, filling fuel" - is not grammatical, and should be "filling up on fuel" (or "filling the fuel tank")
>
> Section 5.1.7, first sentence: "known as trigger" - missing "the"
>
> Section 5.1.8, just about Invalidation PROV-N definition: "anohter" (typo)
>
> Section 5.3.1, inconsistent capitalisation in the list: "software agent", "Organization", "Person"
>
> Section 5.3.5:, Influence PROV-N definition: "A Influence relation" should be "An Influence relation"
>
> Section 5.5.1: "Specialization is not defined as Influence" sounds odd, and I'm not sure what it means. Do you mean "Specialization is not a kind of Influence" or "Specialization is not a sub-type of Influence"? The same issue applies in Sections 5.5.2 and 5.6.2 for Alternate and MemberOf.
>
> Section 5.5.2, Example 45: "They are alternate of each other" should be "They are alternates of each other", "The are both specialization of the page" should be "The are both specializations of the page"
>
> Section 5.6.2, first sentence: "to allow stating the members of a Collection" is grammatically unpleasant. I suggest "to allow the members of a Collection to be stated".
>
> Thanks,
> Simon
>
>
>
>
> Dr Simon Miles
> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
>
> PrIMe: A Methodology for Developing Provenance-Aware Applications:
> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1382/
> ________________________________________
> From: Luc Moreau [l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
> Sent: 21 November 2012 12:58
> To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: prov-dm, prov-n, prov-constraints preliminary staging
>
> 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
>
>
> --
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>
>

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Sunday, 25 November 2012 17:55:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 25 November 2012 17:55:40 GMT