Re: prov-aq review for release as working draft (ISSUE-613)

Ivan,

Thanks for your comments.


On 11/01/2013 12:08, Ivan Herman wrote:
> Paul
>
> two editorial comments:
>
> - In 4.2, the text says "according to the following convention" and then example uses &target=.... This suggests that the &target=... is the usual convention that implementations should use. But this is not the case. However, 4.1.1. says that the URI template defines what is used, ie, I can have a service using a different convention, say, &resource=.... I believe this should be made clearer in the text.

Personally, I agree.  I've raised

>
> - In 4.2 the text says
>
> "A provenance query service should be capable of returning RDF using the vocabulary defined by [PROV-O], in any standard RDF serialization (e.g. RDF/XML), or any other standard serialization of the Provenance Model specification [PROV-DM]"
>
> In my reading this suggests that a query service should provide _all_ the standard rdf serialisations. Is this what we say? Ie, does the service have to provide rdf/xml, turtle, json-ld, and rdfa? Or should it provide at least one of these? (In which case how does it say which one it can support?)
>
> Mini-mini issues:
>
> - In the status section, bulleted list, the 'PROV-AQ' should not reference to itself.
>
> - A full stop is missing after the item on Target-URI
>
> Finally, we should not forget expanding the /ns/prov files (currently under the 'control' of Tim) to include the terms in this document. This should be done when the document is published.
>
> Cheers
>
> Ivan
>
>
> On Jan 10, 2013, at 16:13 , Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> PROV-AQ is now ready for review. This should be considered as a "last call" working draft version.
>>
>> You can find the draft to review at:
>>
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/b3f397c7b15c/paq/prov-aq.html
>>
>> Tim, Simon, Luc, Dong and Stian agreed to review but all comments are appreciated.
>>
>> Questions for reviewers
>> - Can this be released as a last call working draft?
>> - Is the name provenance access and query appropriate for the document?
>> - If not, where are the blocking issues?
>> - If yes, are there other issues to work on?
>>
>> We particularly encourage reviewers to look at Section 5 Forward provenance as this is a new section.
>>
>> In your review please include ISSUE-613
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Paul and Graham
>>
>> -- your friendly prov-aq editors
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
>> Assistant Professor
>> - Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group |
>>    Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
>> - The Network Institute
>> VU University Amsterdam
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 18:58:41 UTC