W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > August 2011

[PAQ] editorial issues

From: Olaf Hartig <hartig@informatik.hu-berlin.de>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 22:38:08 +0200
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <201108012238.11081.hartig@informatik.hu-berlin.de>
Hello,

In the following I list some editorial issues regarding the PAQ document.
I didn't open ISSUEs because these things are easy to implement and they
are not controversial (at least, I hope so).
If I should open ISSUEs nonetheless, please let me know.

(1) Section 3, paragraph 1, last sentence -- I would explicitly mention here 
that each of the different parties uses a different provenance URI for their 
account.

(2) Section 3, paragraph 1, last sentence -- I would add the following 
sentence:
It cannot be assumed that the provenance information provided by one party 
does not contradict the provenance information provided by another party.

(3) Section 3, paragraph 2, first sentence -- I would add

   "... refering to the provenance of the provided resource."

(4) Section 3.1, paragraph 1, first sentence -- That doesn't seem to be a 
sentence, actually.

(5) Section 3.1, paragraph 2, first sentence -- s/provence/provenance

(6) Section 3.1, example -- That's not an example but a "pattern"

(7) Section 3.1, paragraph 3, first sentence -- What does
          "[...] provenance-URI is the URI of a provenance resource
                for which information is returned."
mean? More precisely, what does the "which" refer to? And, how is this 
information returned (as part of the successfull HTTP response)?

(8) The titles of Section 3.2 and 3.3 is not consistent with the corresponding 
bullet points in Section 3: either representation and represented or 
presentation and presented.

(9) Section 3.2, paragraph 1, first sentence -- Similar to (4).

(10) Section 3.4 -- I suggest to use the term "provenance registration 
service" instead of "provenance information service" here because the third-
party service we are talking about in this section does not provide provenance 
information itself; it is just some kind of a look-up service (or index).

(11) The whole document is inconsistent in how it calls what we want to 
access. Sometimes it uses "provenance information", sometimes "provenance 
data", and sometimes just "provenance". For instance, section 2 contains all 
three. The document should be consistent and, thus, use only a single term.
I don't know whether the Model TF agrees on something that we may adopt
here. If not, I suggest "provenance description".

Cheers,
Olaf
Received on Monday, 1 August 2011 20:38:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:50:59 UTC