- From: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:59:01 -0800
- To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I wasn't sure how to send out comments, but here's a pass I made reading PROVO-O sections 1-3.1.6: “PROV Ontology” and “PROV ontology” are used interchangeably throughout the document. Since “PROV Ontology” is the formal name we should be consistent. Section 2.1: “As a reader I thought it would be helpful to have a link on the “Abstract Syntax Notation (ASN) to take me directly to http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-dm-20111018/#prov-asn--the-provenance-abstract-syntax-notation explaining the motivation behind using ASN. The above referenced section in PROV-DM does a great job of briefly providing the rationale. Section 3.1 Direct links corresponding from PROV-O class to PROV-DM model element would make references between the two documents more intuitive. E.g. Class Description Entity is defined to be "An Entity represents an identifiable characterized thing." [http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-dm-20111018/#expression-Entity] 3.1.6 I was confused between the Class definition of location (geographic location) and the example which was a directory path. If we are going to include directory paths then the definition of location needs to be more general. Comment on concern about “geospatial”: Geospatial tends to be used to refer to geographic data that is most likely used for processing or analysis as opposed to something that is displayed on a map. Recommend defer to the existing ISO standard definition.
Received on Friday, 10 February 2012 11:59:28 UTC