- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 19:01:27 +0200
- To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Graham, We've asked for a W3C mercurial repository to be set up for the various draft documents. Hopefully, this will happen soon. Thanks, Paul Graham Klyne wrote: > Sandro, > > I have an action to move a document to the W3C site: > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/30 > > The document is currently at > http://imageweb.zoo.ox.ac.uk/pub/2011/provenance/ReSpec/provenance-access.html > > I'm very keen that the document should be managed via some SCM facility, which I > believe W3C do use for document production. If there's any choice, I'd prefer > it be Mercurial or Git rather than SVN. > > Can you please advise (or provide link to advice) how I might proceed? > > Thanks. > > #g > -- > > Simon Miles wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> This is just to clarify the overall plan for the provenance access >> work over the next 3 months, especially for those who were absent from >> the F2F. >> >> * We are aiming for a single draft proposal regarding some aspects of >> access ready for month 6 (3 months from now), to accompany the >> required model deliverables [1]. >> >> * We will iterate over and raise issues with a single document with >> one consistent view (as opposed to a list of competing proposals). >> This will evolve into the draft proposal. >> >> * As Graham has already produced such a starting document, we decided >> to begin from that and asked him to move it to the Wiki [2]. >> >> * Once transferred to the Wiki, we will raise issues with the >> proposal, e.g. where important cases are not adequately covered, using >> the issue tracker. Issues regarding inadequacy should, ideally, >> explain where it does not cover what is required by reference to the >> scenario we defined in the F2F1 [3]. Tim has kindly elaborated this >> with data relating to the journalism example. >> >> * In particular, it would be good for those who made proposals in the >> F2F1 document, to raise issues which illustrate the salient >> differences of their proposal with the current draft [4]. >> >> If you have any comments on this plan, please raise them by email. >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Deliverables >> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/30 >> [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario >> [4] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1_Access_and_Query_Proposal >> >> Thanks, >> Simon >> > > -- Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ Assistant Professor Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group Artificial Intelligence Section Department of Computer Science VU University Amsterdam
Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2011 17:02:03 UTC