Re: PROV-ISSUE-630 (prov-sem-fpwd-review): PROV-SEM review for FPWD [Formal Semantics]

Hearing no objections, this issue is now closed.  (The issues marked TODO in the reviews have now all been either addressed or marked with notes to be addressed in a future version.)

--James

On Mar 2, 2013, at 4:04 PM, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> 
> Thanks again to Simon, Palo, Khalid, Satya and Luc for their reviews.  I have uploaded the reviews and draft responses here:
> 
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/semantics/review/ISSUE-630-khalid.txt
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/semantics/review/ISSUE-630-luc.txt
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/semantics/review/ISSUE-630-paolo.txt
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/semantics/review/ISSUE-630-satya.txt
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/semantics/review/ISSUE-630-simon.txt
> 
> Some of the responses are still marked TODO to reflect places I haven't yet made changes but plan to do so by Monday.
> 
> The fixed review copy (for comparison with the ED) is archived here also:
> 
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/semantics/review/prov-sem-review-20130226.html
> 
> I have raised ISSUE-635 to capture discussion on the scope and completeness issues Luc raised.  If there are other issues that should be flagged for future discussion, please raise them.
> 
> Marked pending review; I propose to close this issue Monday when the document is staged and all TODOs in the responses are addressed (or transferred to TODOs in the document itself).
> 
> --James
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 25, 2013, at 12:50 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> PROV-ISSUE-630 (prov-sem-fpwd-review): PROV-SEM review for FPWD [Formal Semantics]
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/630
>>> 
>>> Raised by: James Cheney
>>> On product: Formal Semantics
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I have completed a cleanup pass on the semantics.  There are definitely still (mostly clearly-marked) areas where work is needed.  
>>> 
>>> Satya, Simon, Paolo, and Khalid had indicated willingness to review by Thursday, so that we can vote on release with other documents as part of the PR release cycle.
>>> 
>>> Please respond to this issue with comments so that they are tracked.
>>> 
>>> Review questions:
>>> 
>>> 1.  Is the purpose of the document clear and consistent with the working group's consensus about the semantics?  If not, can you suggest clarifications or improvements?
>>> 
>>> 2.  Are there minor issues that can be corrected easily prior to FPWD release?
>>> 
>>> 3.  Are there blocking issues that must be addressed prior to release as a first public working draft?  
>>> 
>>> 4.  Are there non-blocking, but important issues that should be discussed and resolved for future editions? (no need to list TODOs already reflected in the document itself, unless there is disagreement about how to resolve them).
>>> 
>>> --James
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
> 
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.