Re: PAQ tidying notes

Simon,

Thanks for this.  I've changed all but one of these in the editor working copy: 
  details below.

(BTW, I introduced a new CSS class for TODOs, though currently uses same styling 
as "Issue".)

I think I've now I've moved all of the paragraph-level TODOs into boxes.

On 17/11/2011 16:40, Simon Miles wrote:
> Graham, Paul,
>
> Suggestions on tidying up the PAQ document (not much):
>
> Section 1. TODO is in the text, but it not so critical here as there's
> no text to be intermingled with.

Now boxed.

> Section 1.2, paragraph 3: "Requests for provenance about a resource
> may return provenance information that uses one or more entity-URIs to
> refer to it." - not clear what "refer to it" means (given the
> preceding paragraphs).

Oops, I agree.  changes "it" to "versions of that resource".

> Section 3.3, end: There is one TODO in a box, two not in boxes, seems
> untidy at least. The TODOs themselves could be expressed more clearly
> (do we care that readers understand what we we are aware needs to be
> done, or are the TODOs solely for us?)

Cleaned up.

> Section 4.1.2. Not clear what @@redundant... text is for, and
> shouldn't be intermingled in text.

Neither am I :)  Removed.

> Section 5.3 example: Graham's probably right that there's not much
> better than is currently done, but I note that there is annotation
> within the example in case a better way is thought of.

I've left @@TBD in the example for now, with the intention of sorting it out 
when dust settles on the vocabulary and namespace URIs.

> Section 8: Annotations are in the text and could be separated by
> putting in boxes, to be consistent with rest of document.

Done.

#g
--

Received on Thursday, 17 November 2011 18:12:11 UTC