W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > March 2013

[PROV-AQ] ISSUE-632: Should PROV-AQ be renamed

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:12:49 +0000
Message-ID: <513DBC31.3090605@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/632

PROV-AQ-rename

"This was a question asked of reviewers at the last review round. Most were OK 
with the current name, but this from Luc:

[[
Is the name provenance access and query appropriate for the document?

No. Access yes, query very very little, ping back (if too stay in
document) not reflected.

I would go for "provenance access and services"
]]

I think "provenance access and services" is a reasonable title, but this change 
will make work for other editors. IS IT WORTH THE EFFORT?

I also note that the parts of text have been updated to emphasize the querying 
nature of the services.

I am anticipating that Stian's proposed change to the Pingback will make it look 
far more like an access mechanism."

PROPOSE: no change to document name

...

My thoughts:

I think all the features described can reasonably be considered to be related to 
"access" and "query".  As such, I think the present title is usefully 
descriptive of the document content.

While I think the proposed alternative title "provenance access and services" is 
OK, if less descriptive, I question whether it's worth the effort to change.

I also note that the REC-track documents have now been approved and staged with 
the present name, so the opportunity to change the name may have passed. e.g.

[[
PROV-AQ (To be published as Note), the mechanisms for accessing and querying 
provenance [PROV-AQ];
]]
-- http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-prov-dm-20130312/

#g
--
Received on Monday, 11 March 2013 11:13:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:23 UTC