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

mini-review of PROV-OVERVIEW

From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:42:44 +0000
Message-ID: <50B3B824.3080009@ncl.ac.uk>
To: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi,
   some minor comments:

-  should PROV-DC be part of the list as a note?

- PROV-O is listed before PROV-DM everywhere they are mentioned together. but initially PROV-O is defined as "a mapping from PROV to 
..."  which suggests it follows PROV-DM
    this also occurs in the table of sec. 2

sec 2

- is "Core Spec" a type of audience?  should it be "implementors", or some other category?

- the text next to PROV-DM is a paste of that of PROV-XML. Proposed:  "a specification of the PROV data model".
    Should it come before PROV-XML?  (and before PROV-O as suggested above?)

- "Developers seeking to retrieve or publish provenance "  propose to add: "using Web protocols"

- I am not super happy with "PROV-N mapping to text".  I think it's more than text, it's a relational encoding. If you don't like 
"relational" here, fine, I still think it's more than "text".. :-)
    maybe specify PROV-N specifies a grammar for a formal language designed to be human readable?

minor

- a set of documents defining  -> a set of documents that define
- applying  -> that apply
- it should be obvious, but possibly clarify that the contributors are in alpha order


HIH  --Paolo

-- 
-----------  ~oo~  --------------
Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org
School of Computing Science, Newcastle University,  UK
http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
Received on Monday, 26 November 2012 18:43:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 26 November 2012 18:43:11 GMT