Re: [all] call for consensus on Standoff Provenance (related to ISSUE-22)

Hi Dave, all,

reading

"The provenance records must be recorded and accessed in a manner
conformant to the specifications produced by the W3C Provenance Working
Group"

I assume that you mean: the provenance record MUST be processed following
the PROV specifications, right?

This is then a normative feature of the working group. Do we have two
partners that will provide this processing and test cases? I know that
there are implementation commitments, I just want to be sure that people
are aware of what's needed.

Editorial: then you refer to "provenance entity record", it would be
helpful to have a reference to the PROV spec in which this is defined. I
guess this might be close to
http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-aq/#dfn-provenance-uri
which you refer to as "provenance URI", but it seems the term "entity
record" does not appear in http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-aq/

With regards to the length of the text, it might make sense to shorten this
indeed, since there is no example for MT, post- or pre-processing etc., and
have the material in the "best practices" doc.

Best,

Felix

2012/7/26 Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>

> Hi all,
> Given the implementation commitment to provenance and the previous posting
> on this subject, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**
> Public/public-multilingualweb-**lt/2012Jun/0161.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Jun/0161.html>please find attached the proposed specification for the Standoff Provenance
> data category, which complements the Translation Provenance Agent
>
> i already acknowledge the likely comment that this needs a pointer option,
> that's no problem if needed. But I wanted to get this out as it may help
> address many of the comments already being raised around Translation
> Provenance Agent call.
>
> many thanks,
> Dave
>
>


-- 
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow