- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 08:35:35 +0100
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi Tim, > At the meeting, I was unclear about the purpose of this example. > It is now very clear, and I like it very much. > It should be included in the PA(Q) document that we are going to produce. I think that to say "it should be included" is not quite right here - it makes a big pre-judgement about the editorial content of a document whose substantive content is arguably still dependent on scenario and terminology discussions. I would say, rather, that the PAQ document should adequately address (be tested against) the example given, among others. #g -- > Regards, > Luc > > On 07/09/2011 07:43 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote: >> prov-wg, >> >> Apologies for the first two messages in this chain. >> I was posting them so that they would end up in the mail archive. >> >> Now that they are in the mail archive, they are part of the >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario#Concrete_Example >> >> and we can discuss how the different "access proposals" would apply to >> the example. >> >> Regards, >> Tim >> >> >> On Jul 7, 2011, at 3:15 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote: >> >> >>> WG, >>> >>> An additional form of my latest article. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Tim Lebo >>> >>> p.s. - http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario >>> >>> >>> >>> <crime.png> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 7, 2011, at 2:46 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote: >>> >>> >>>> WG, >>>> >>>> Here is my latest article. Please check out it's provenance and let >>>> me know what you think. >>>> >>>> <crime.html> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Tim Lebo >>>> >>> >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2011 07:53:03 UTC