Re: PROV-WG response to comments on constraints

Hi again Antoine, 

Just a reminder that it would be very helpful if you could acknowledge and indicate any issues that are not yet resolved before Friday, as part of the W3C process for recommendation track documents.

--James

On Nov 1, 2012, at 2:13 PM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:

> Thank you for your response. I will take a close attention to your comments in the following days. I expect to go back to this on Monday only, though. Again, sorry I sent this after the Last Call deadline.
> 
> Best,
> AZ
> 
> Le 01/11/2012 18:27, James Cheney a écrit :
>> Hi Antoine,
>> 
>> I'm writing on behalf of the Provenance Working Group with the group's
>> response to your feedback. Paul Groth, who handled your comment
>> originally, is traveling at the moment.
>> 
>> Thanks for your active engagement with helping improve W3C PROV. We have
>> taken a look at your comment, in the email archived here.
>> 
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Oct/0004.html
>> 
>> Because your detailed feedback reflected a number of different concerns,
>> we created several tracked sub-issues on the PROV-CONSTRAINTS document:
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/576
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/577
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/578
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/579
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/580
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/581
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/582
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/583
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/584
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/585
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/586
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/587
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/588
>> 
>> As you may be aware, the formal response period for PROV-CONSTRAINTS
>> ended on October 10, and your comments were submitted after that time;
>> nevertheless, we have made an effort to address each of your comments,
>> either by making changes to the document, or by providing more detailed
>> justification for the design decisions we have made.  You can find our
>> responses here:
>> 
>> # 1.6.2 ISSUE-576 (logical definition and comments on prov-constraints)
>> <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-576_.28logical_definition_and_comments_on_prov-constraints.29>
>> # 1.6.3 ISSUE-582 (document-instance)
>> <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-582_.28document-instance.29>
>> # 1.6.4 ISSUE-586 (toplevel-bundle-description)
>> <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-586_.28toplevel-bundle-description.29>
>> # 1.6.5 ISSUE-587 (rdf-analogies)
>> <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-587_.28rdf-analogies.29>
>> # 1.6.6 ISSUE-588 (strictly-precedes-irreflexive)
>> <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-588_.28strictly-precedes-irreflexive.29>
>> # 1.6.7 ISSUE-584 (merging)
>> <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-584_.28merging.29>
>> # 1.6.8 ISSUE-579 (declarative-fol-specification)
>> <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-579_.28declarative-fol-specification.29>
>> # 1.6.9 ISSUE-585 (applying-satisfying-constraints)
>> <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-585_.28applying-satisfying-constraints.29>
>> # 1.6.10 ISSUE-583 (equivalent-instances-in-bundles)
>> <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-583_.28equivalent-instances-in-bundles.29>
>> # 1.6.11 ISSUE-580 (drop-syntactic-sugar-definitions)
>> <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-580_.28drop-syntactic-sugar-definitions.29>
>> # 1.6.12 ISSUE-577 (valid-vs-consistent)
>> <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-577_.28valid-vs-consistent.29>
>> # 1.6.13 ISSUE-578 (equivalence)
>> <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-578_.28equivalence.29>
>> # 1.6.14 ISSUE-581 (avoid-specifying-algorithm)
>> <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-581_.28avoid-specifying-algorithm.29>
>> 
>> The changes are reflected in the current editor's draft, which also
>> contains a summary of changes since the Last Call Working Draft:
>> 
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/diff-c.html
>> 
>> Please note, in particular, that ISSUE-579 has been transferred to the
>> PROV-SEM document, since our planned resolution to this issue is to
>> include the suggested first-order axiomatization in PROV-SEM.  We have
>> made a start at giving the first-order axiomatization explicitly as part
>> of the current draft of PROV-SEM, which is here:
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsLC#Axiomatization
>> 
>> We naturally would welcome your feedback on PROV-SEM as it progresses
>> (the group plans to release it as a "Note" complementing the
>> recommendations).
>> 
>> As part of the W3C process, for each issue, we need to have an
>> acknowledgement from you that our responses resolve your comment(s) or
>> if not a bit of description as to why. Could you please provide this for us?
>> 
>> Thanks again for all your help,
>> --James
>> 
>> 
>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Antoine Zimmermann
> ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol
> École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne
> 158 cours Fauriel
> 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
> France
> Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
> Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
> http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
> 
> 


-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2012 21:13:22 UTC