- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:28:51 +0100
- To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- CC: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi James, I don't understand the point of links *from* the data model document to the formal model document, since the link target is a copy of (an old version of) a constraint that appears in the data model document. It would make more sense if links appeared in the formal model document. In addition, all constraints have been named, and can be linked using these names. What do you think? Cheers, Luc On 23/09/2011 13:41, James Cheney wrote: > I don't see why we could not have links between the two documents, if they're helpful. Is it a W3C formatting requirement, or a logistical / presentation requirement? > > Have they been helpful so far? To my knowledge, we have not yet started associating the informal constraints in the DM with their formalizations in the FM, but this still seems like a worthwhile thing to do. > > I would also think that having numbers to refer to the constraints will be helpful in managing external issues raised against them. (since the numbers should be persistent even if the section numbers change) > > It seems like the only obvious options are keep them, find way to "filter" them out of the published draft, or delete them and not bother with this in the future. If they're not helpful, then they should go. If they're helpful, then why not keep them in the working drafts. > > --James > > On Sep 23, 2011, at 12:32 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: > > >> Hi James and Satya, >> >> There are a series of links from Data model document to Formal model documents, regarding >> constraints to be satisfied. >> >> I don't think these can stay for FPWD. >> >> What do you want to do with them? >> >> Cheers, >> Luc >> >> >> > >
Received on Friday, 23 September 2011 13:30:03 UTC