- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 12:56:41 +0100
- To: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I've just gone through the outstanding issues on the PAQ document (http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/5), with links and brief summaries below. In particular, if I don't hear any objections, I propose to close the following later today (this isn't irrevocable, but it does effectively remove the issues from active consideration by the editors): <propose to close> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/38 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/46 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/52 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/53 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/55 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/74 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/75 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/80 </propose to close> ======== There follows a very brief summary of how I perceive each of the outstanding issues. The general situation is that I'm waiting for some conclusion to the discussions around the model document about "Entities", assertions, things, etc. ======== http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/54 which-provenance-is-expected-to-be-retrieved Awaiting clarification of things vs entities vs assertions discussion before adding new subsection to introduction explaining how these relate to access and query. ... http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/68 http-link-domain Loosely related to issue 54. Awaiting clarification of things vs entities vs assertions discussion before adding new subsection to introduction explaining how these relate to access and query. ... http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/38 Propose to close ... http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/46 Propose to close (precise name and form of "anchor" link still under discussion - cf. issue 54, etc.) ... http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/52 Propose to close ... http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/53 Propose to close ... http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/55 Propose to close ... http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/74 Propose to close (but note that, in responding to issue 54, this topic may get revisited) ... http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/73 Use "anchor" context URI instead of introducing a "target" relationship in HTTP Awaiting dust to settler in other areas, issue 54, etc. ... http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/75 provenance-service-and-provenance-uri Propose to close. ... http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/76 xml-examples Document has been reorganized per discussions, but still only placeholders for XML examples. ... http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/77 paq-terminology I think most of the issues have been addressed, but we're still awaiting for a consensus ruling on use of the term "context". I also think this is bound up with my proposed approach to add a new subsection to the introduction explaining how the PAQ interacts with the various provenance concepts (cf. issue 54), hence still awaiting clarification of model concepts. ... http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/78 contexts-and-provenance-uris I think this is bound up with issue 54, and awaiting dust to settle on model concepts. ... http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/79 provenance-uri-contract This is very much bound up with discussions about the provenance model. Waiting for dust to settle. ... http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/80 about-provenance-template Propose to close (no change to document). ======== #g
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2011 11:57:59 UTC