Re: [PAQ] editorial issues

Olaf Hartig wrote:
> 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.

Done.

> (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.

Done (in paraphrase.)

> (3) Section 3, paragraph 2, first sentence -- I would add
> 
>    "... refering to the provenance of the provided resource."

Done.

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

Er, yes.  I actually dislike using references as nouns in sentences, but there I 
go...  and yes, it is rather clumsy.

Reworked.

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

Done.

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

I suppose it is.  I've changed to ReSpec class to pattern and hacked up some 
alternate CSS for now.  We may want to revisit the presentation detail later.

> (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)?

Simplified: "... indicates that <code><cite>provenance-URI</cite></code> is the 
URI of some provenance for the requested resource."

> (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.

OK - I've gone with "presented" for now.

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

Fixed.

> (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).

This is now section 4 - I had my section nesting messed up.

I've gone with just "provenance service" for now.  This section is due to be 
reworked to use a different approach, so I propose to leave it there for now.

> (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".

Yes.  I personally would select just "provenance".  But pending a WG consensus 
I'll lodge this as an issue against PAQ to be revisited later.

Raised as http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/70

That's it, I think.

Thanks for the feedback.

#g

Received on Thursday, 4 August 2011 12:11:06 UTC