W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > July 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-438 (prov-n-post-f2f3-review ): Final review before last call vote [prov-n]

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 23:54:10 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|5672a9b7f9be2a774a74b142076e00a5o69NyY08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4FFCB292.8040603@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
James, Tom, Graham, Khalid, Stian,

Thanks for your reviews.

We have produced a revised version of the document [1] and color coded 
diffs [2].

Short answers to your comments can be found in the following files.
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/comments/issue-438-stian.txt 

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/comments/issue-438-graham.txt 

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/comments/issue-438-tom.txt 

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/comments/issue-438-khalid.txt 

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/comments/issue-438-james.txt 


Regards,
Luc

[1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-n.html
[2] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/diff-n.html


On 10/07/12 18:13, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Hi Stian, and all prov-n reviewers
>
> I have addressed Stian's comments first, since, in a first 
> approximation, all the other reviews
> on prov-n, raise similar issues.
>
> Stian, Thanks for helping  draft some new sections.
>
> The latest editor's draft [1] includes all changes.
> Colour coded diffs appear [2]
> Response to your comments appear in [3].
>
> Your key concerns before release have been addressed:
>
> * introduce "nonterminal"
> You did it, thanks.
> * fix syntax errors
> addressed as you suggested
> * memberOf -> hasMember
> now hadMembers
> * clarify/remote  % encoding in local part of QUALIFIED_NAME
> issue solved with \-espcaping (PN_LOCAL_ESC)
>  * clarifications about namespace scoping/overwrite
> rules have been clarified
>
> Can you let me know if there are still issues before Wednesday's call?
> Thanks,
> Luc
>
>
> [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-n.html
> [2] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/diff-n.html
> [3] 
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/comments/issue-438-stian.txt 
>
>
> On 07/06/2012 03:02 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue
>> Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>>> PROV-ISSUE-438 (prov-n-post-f2f3-review  ): Final review before last 
>>> call vote   [prov-n]
>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-n-20120629/prov-n.html 
>>>
>>>
>>> Question for reviewers: Can the document be published as Last Call 
>>> working draft?
>>
>> Of my comments below, the following SHOULD be addressed before
>> publishing as Last Call draft:
>> * introduce "nonterminal"
>> * fix syntax errors
>> * memberOf -> hasMember
>> * clarify/remote  % encoding in local part of QUALIFIED_NAME
>> * clarifications about namespace scoping/overwrite
>>
>> Given a minimum of the above are addressed, then yes, the document can
>> be published as Last Call WD.
>>
>> Loads of details follow.. don't despair!
>>
>>
>> ===================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In 1.1, the use of the term "nonterminal" is not introduced. This
>> computer science term used for parsers might be obvious for anyone who
>> is reading the document to produce a PROV-N parser, but not for
>> "Readers of the [PROV-DM] and of [PROV-CONSTRAINTS] documents". I see
>> the term is used several times later in the document, and so should be
>> introduced.
>>
>> A sentence like "Those readers may find the _expression_ nonterminal a
>> useful entry point into the grammar" should be reformulated to
>> something like "Those readers may find the definition _expression_ a
>> useful entry point into the grammar".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 1.3 The PROV namespace (see Section 4.7.1)
>> The section number should be 3.7.4
>>
>>
>>> 2.1
>>> All PROV data model relations involve two primary elements, the 
>>> subject and the object, in this order
>> Not true. Examples:
>>
>>> activity(a1)
>>> entity(e1)
>> So those might not be 'relations' - but that is not clear from the
>> above. Rephrase to something like "Many PROV-N predicates denote a
>> relationship between two primary elements, the _subject_ and the
>> _object_, in this order".
>>
>> I would include an entity() example in this section, to show that not
>> all have subject and object. I would do this before Example 1 and the
>> above sentence.
>>
>>> Example 0:
>>> In this example, _e1_ is asserted to be a PROV _entity_.
>>>     entity(e1)
>>
>>
>>> Example 2
>>> In the following expressions, the optional activity a along with the 
>>> generation and usage identifiers g2 and u1:
>>> wasDerivedFrom(e2, e1, a, g2, u1)
>> The sentence does not parse. I suggest "The following expression
>> expands the above derivation relation by providing additional
>> elements: the activity _a_, the generation _g2_ and the usage _u1_.
>>
>>> Extended Backus-Naur Form (EBNF) notation
>> This is again well known in CS - but a hyperlink would be useful. Now
>> I had to go to Wikipedia. However the mini-intro right below is
>> useful. "The below is a summary of "
>>
>>
>> I would be more precise, that "The PROV-N grammar is specified in this
>> document using the .." - as knowledge of EBNF is not a requirement for
>> using PROV-N - just for understanding the definitions in this
>> document.
>>
>>
>>
>>> 2.2 EBNF Grammar
>>> ..
>>> Each expression non-terminal expression i.e., entityExpression, 
>>> activityExpression etc., corresponds to
>> expression non-terminal expression??
>>
>>
>> Reformulate to something like "Each of the symbols included in
>> _expression_ above, e.g. entityExpression, corresponds to one element
>> (e.g. entity) in the PROV data model."
>>
>>
>> Why hyperlinks on 'expression' here in this section? It goes 1 line up
>> or down, it's very confusing.  Use <code>expression</code> or similar
>> instead.
>>
>>
>>> such that the text for an element matches the corresponding 
>>> expression production of the grammar.
>> What does this mean? That the text of the document corresponds to what
>> you get by parsing the text? That does not tell me anything..
>>
>>
>> Is the bundle construct now required for the PROV-N document? If so,
>> almost none of the examples in this document or in PROV-DM are valid
>> PROV-N documents. That might well be the case, as they want to reuse
>> namespaces, etc - but that should then be stated explicitly, kind of
>> like
>>
>>
>>> 2.3 Optional attributes
>> Should add something like "The interpretation of an optional attribute
>> that is not provided is given by Section 4.1 in PROV-CONSTRAINTS"
>> somewhere.
>>
>>
>>> 2.4 Identifiers and attributes
>>> Most expressions defined in the grammar include the use of two 
>>> terms: an identifier and a set of attribute-value pairs, delimited 
>>> by square brackets
>> This reads like:
>>
>>> identifier [] attribute-value pairs
>> Which is not what is meant! Something more like:
>>
>> "Almost all expressions defined in this grammar may also include an
>> identifier for the expression.  Most expression can also include a set
>> of attribute-value pairs, grouped within square brackets."
>>
>>
>> "By convention, optional identifiers are separated using a semi-colon
>> ';'."  By convention.. but I might do something else?  Just say that
>> they ARE separated like that: "Optional identifiers are separated
>> using a semi-colon ';', but where the identifiers are required, the
>> regular comma ',' is used."
>>
>> Or do you say I need to also allow parsing with ',' for the
>> permutations that are non-ambigious? The defition for
>> optionalIdentifier says no. (good!)
>>
>>
>>> Example 7
>>> ..
>>> The third example shows that one can optionally indicate the missing 
>>> identifier using the - marker.
>> Add "This is equivalent to the first expression".
>>
>>> Example 8
>>> The first and second activities have no attributes.
>> Add ", and are equivalent."
>>
>>
>>> 2.5 Comments
>>> ... such cooments ...
>> "such comments"
>>
>>
>>> 3.1.3 Generation
>>> generationExpression       ::=       "wasGeneratedBy" "(" 
>>> optionalIdentifier eIdentifier ( "," aIdentifierOrMarker "," 
>>> timeOrMarker )? optionalAttributeValuePairs ")"
>> This does not allow aIdentifierOrMarker without timeOrMarker - is this
>> intentional?
>>
>>
>> The following examples are not valid:
>>
>>> wasGeneratedBy(e2, a1, tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215)
>>> wasGeneratedBy(ex:g1; e, a, tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215)
>> because tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215 is not a valid timeOrMarker.
>>
>>
>> I would also recommend that these show-cases use the same names, so
>> rather than say intermixing a1 and ex:edit1 - just always use a1.
>>
>>
>>> Even though the production generationExpression allows for 
>>> expressions wasGeneratedBy(e2, -, -) and wasGeneratedBy(-; e2, -, 
>>> -), these expressions are not valid in PROV-N, since at least one of 
>>> id, activity, time, and attributes must be present.
>> This is suboptimal, could it not be worked into the rules in time?
>> Could we rather say this follows from PROV-CONSTRAINTS and PROV-DM?
>> "Since" does not make sense here - where is it stated that they MUST
>> be present? Here. So try rather:  "... are not valid in PROV-N; at
>> least one of... MUST be present"
>>
>> Equivalent comment for this kind of paragraph for usage, 
>> startExpression, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>>> 3.1.4 Usage
>> usageExpression       ::=       "used" "(" optionalIdentifier 
>> aIdentifier
>> "," ( "," eIdentifierOrMarker "," timeOrMarker )?
>> optionalAttributeValuePairs ")"
>>
>> This wrongly requires a double comma before
>> eIdentifierOrMarker-timeormarker block:
>>
>> used(a1,,e,-)
>>
>> Should be:
>>
>>> usageExpression       ::=       "used" "(" optionalIdentifier 
>>> aIdentifier ( "," eIdentifierOrMarker "," timeOrMarker )? 
>>> optionalAttributeValuePairs ")"
>>
>> This rule also requires timeOrMarker if eIdentifierOrMarker is present
>> - is this intentional? I won't ask this again for the following forms
>> - but assume that the style is "no optionals or all optionals" - in
>> which case this should be clarified in section 2.3 - the position
>> argument hints that the old style of allowing to chop of trailing -'s
>> is allowed.
>>
>>> Even though the production usageExpression allows for expressions 
>>> used(a2, -, -) and used(-; e2, -, -),
>> should be:
>>    used(-; a1, -, -)
>>
>>> 3.1.6 Start
>>> Note: Even though the production startExpression allows for 
>>> expressions wasStartedBy(e2, -, -) and wasStartedBy(-; e2, -, -),
>> Should be:
>>     wasStartedBy(a1, -, -, -)
>>     wasStartedBy(-; a1, -, -, -)
>>
>>
>>> 3.1.7 End
>>> wasEndedBy(e; ex:act2)
>>> wasEndedBy(e; ex:act2, ex:trigger, -, 2011-11-16T16:00:00)
>> I would not use 'e' as id here - that is confusing as 'e' is used for
>> entity earlier. Try 'end'.
>>
>>> Note:Even though the production endExpression allows for expressions 
>>> wasEndedBy(e2, -, -) and wasEndedBy(-; e2, -, -),
>> Should be:
>>   wasEndedBy(a1, -, -, -)
>>   wasEndedBy(-; a1, -, -, -),
>>
>>
>> 3.2.1 Derivation
>>
>> The following examples are invalid:
>>
>>    wasDerivedFrom(d, e2, e1, a, g2, u1, [ex:comment="a righteous 
>> derivation"])
>>    wasDerivedFrom(d, e2, e1, a, g2, u1)
>>    wasDerivedFrom(-, e2, e1, a, g2, u1)
>>
>> As they should use ; to terminate optionalIdentifier rather than ,
>>
>>
>>
>> 3.3.2 -> 3.2.4 (Revision, Quotation, Primary Source)
>>
>> An introduction on the top of these should be provided, to note that
>> the regular syntax for wasDerivedFrom is used, with the additional
>> prov:type attribute given to specify the type of derivation. As it
>> stands it can read as if only the syntax used in the example is valid.
>>    Make these subsections of 3.2.1 instead?
>>
>>
>> 3.2.4
>>> [ prove:type='prov:PrimarySource' ])
>> Should be:
>>
>>    [ prov:type='prov:PrimarySource' ])
>>
>>
>> The use of 'single quotes' for the prov:type as opposed to "double
>> quote" for the other attribute is confusing. By reading deeply into
>> section 3.7.3 I see this is a short hand for "ex:value" %%
>> prov:QUALIFIED_NAME. Could a link be provided for this in 3.2.x?
>>
>> prov:type is not explained anywhere in PROV-N. Almost all examples
>> using it with custom attributes use "double quotes", for instance:
>>
>> >  actedOnBehalfOf(del1; ag2, ag1, a, [prov:type="contract"])
>>
>> > agent(ag4, [ prov:type="prov:Person", ex:name="David" ])
>>
>> I assumed (wrongly?) that prov:type in a way has range
>> prov:QUALIFIED_NAME union xsd:anyURI - but I'm not sure as "a Literal
>> may be an IRI-typed string (with datatype xsd:anyURI); such IRI has no
>> specific interpretation in the context of PROV.".
>>
>> So does prov:type="contract" simply mean "contract" out of thin air
>> rather than bound to any namespace? We would struggle to translate
>> this to PROV-O where prov:type maps to rdf:type. If this is the case,
>> then I expect all prov:type="prov.*" should be with single quotes
>> instead.
>>
>>
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-dm-20120628/prov-dm.html#term-attribute-type 
>>
>> says "PROV-DM is agnostic about the representation of types, and only
>> states that the value associated with a prov:type attribute must be a
>> PROV-DM Value." - but does not distinguish between 'single',  "double"
>> quote and "qualified" %% prov:QUALIFIED_NAME notation.
>>
>>
>>
>>> 3.4.1 Bundle declaration
>>> Example 26
>>> bundle ex:author-view
>>>    agent(ex:Paolo,   [ prov:type='prov:Person' ])
>>>    agent(ex:Simon,   [ prov:type='prov:Person' ])
>>>    ...
>>> endBundle
>> Nitpicking, but I would use " // ... " as "..." is not valid PROV-N.
>>
>>
>> 3.4.1 should also provide a forward link to 4. Toplevel Bundle,
>> because otherwise the example does not make sense (prefix ex: is not
>> declared)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 3.5.3 Mention
>>> mentionExpression       ::=       "mentionOf" "(" identifier "," 
>>> identifier "," bIdentifier ")"
>> Should be:
>>
>>    mentionExpression       ::=       "mentionOf" "(" eIdentifier ","
>> eIdentifier "," bIdentifier ")"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 3.6.1 Membership
>>
>>>   memberOf(mId, c, {e1, e2, e3}, [])   // Collection membership
>> should be:
>>
>>>   memberOf(mId; c, {e1, e2, e3}, [])   // Collection membership
>>
>>
>> This reads the wrong way - it says c is a member of {e1, e2, e3} by
>> the previously mentioned subject-relation-object rule.
>>
>> Propose renaming 'memberOf' to 'hasMembers', 'hadMembers' or
>> 'members'. (I do not propose to make the entity or entity set as first
>> argument)
>>
>>
>> Opposite of all other example, this example does not start with a
>> 'full' expression, as the 'complete' argument is missing. Also the
>> attributes are empty. I would change to:
>>
>>
>>   memberOf(mId; c, {e1, e2, e3}, true, [dct:description="All of them"])
>>    // Collection membership
>>
>>
>>> // default "complete" flag is false
>> This is a PROV-DM or PROV-CONSTRAINT matter and should not be
>> described here - the remaining relations don't explain meaning of
>> missing optionals.
>>
>>
>>> memberOf(c3, ,[])
>>> memberOf(c3, ,true, [])
>> Invalid syntax, as entitySet       ::=       "{" (eIdentifier)* "}"
>>
>> Change to:
>>
>>    memberOf(c3, {} ,[])
>>    memberOf(c3, {} ,true, [])
>>
>> First one of these should be invalid by the same reason as for usage,
>> and thus should not be listed. (It would need to include some
>> attributes in [] to be valid)
>>
>>
>> 3.7.1 Identifier
>>
>>> dIdentifier       ::=       identifier
>>
>> This is not used anywhere and can be removed. (Dictionary?)
>>
>>
>>> A qualified name's prefix is optional. If a prefix occurs in a 
>>> qualified name, it refers to a namespace declared in a namespace 
>>> declaration.
>> I would change it to "it MUST refer to a namespace as declared in a.."
>> - otherwise this would be valid:
>>
>> bundle
>>    prefix ex <http://example.com/>
>>    entity(fred:e1)
>> endBundle
>>
>> without declaring the prefix "fred".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 3.7.2 Attribute
>>> The reserved attributes in the PROV namespace are the following.
>> add "Their meaning is explained by [PROV-DM]".
>>
>>
>> <INT_LITERAL>       ::=       ("-")? (DIGIT)+
>>
>> This *might* be in conflict with QUALIFIED_NAME which allows local
>> names like "1337" (without quotes) - but I have not checked so
>> thoroughly. It is at least confusing. It means that you can do:
>>
>> entity(1337, [1337=1337])
>>
>> where the first and second 1337 is the relative IRI reference <1337>
>> based on the default namespace, while the third 1337 is the number
>> "1337" %% xsd:int.
>>
>> However I don't think there is anywhere that allows both a literal and
>> an identifier in the same position, so we MIGHT be safe. Parser heads
>> converge here.
>>
>>
>>> 3.7.3 Literal
>>> Note:The productions for prov:QUALIFIED_NAME and INT_LITERAL are 
>>> conflicting. In the context of a literal, a parser should give 
>>> precedence to the production for INT_LITERAL.
>> Again, I don't see this conflict, as the former requires 'single'
>> quotes and the latter does not allow that.
>>
>>
>> entity(e1, [ex:value='1337'])   // equivalent to
>> entity(e1, [ex:value="1337" %% prov:QUALIFIED_NAME])
>>
>> entity(e1, [ex:value=1337])   // equivalent to
>> entity(e1, [ex:value="1337" %% xsd:int])
>>
>>
>> It would be good if a (separate) example in 3.7.3 showed all of these
>> equivalences.
>>
>>
>>
>>> 3.7.3.1 Reserved Type Values
>>> The reserved type values in the PROV namespace are the following
>> Add "Their meaning is defined by [PROV-DM].
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 3.7.4 Namespace
>>
>>
>>> namespaceDeclaration       ::=       "prefix" QUALIFIED_NAME namespace
>>> <QUALIFIED_NAME>       ::=       ( PN_PREFIX ":" )? PN_LOCAL
>>>                                                         | PN_PREFIX ":"
>> This would allow:
>>
>> bundle
>>    prefix fred:soup <http://example.com/>
>> endBundle
>>
>> but all the examples define prefix with only the lefthand side of a
>> QUALIFIED_NAME - ie. PN_PREFIX. So it should be:
>>
>>
>>    namespaceDeclaration       ::=       "prefix" PN_PREFIX namespace
>>
>> To match all valid prefixes in QUALIFIED_NAME.
>>
>> Note that QUALIFIED_NAME allows the empty prefix, ie ":ex1" (which is
>> different from "ex1"). ((And thus also ":"))
>>
>> However this would be difficult to declare ":" in the current prefix
>> rule,  because unlike say in Sparql and Turtle, the prefix is not
>> declared with the trailing ":". One would have to say:
>>
>> bundle
>>    prefix <http://example.com/> // Two spaces before < !
>> endBundle
>>
>>
>> I suggest to change the prefix declaration to include the trailing : 
>> - ie:
>>
>>   namespaceDeclaration       ::=       "prefix" QUALIFIED_NAME ":" 
>> namespace
>>   bundle
>>     prefix : <http://example.com/>
>>     prefix ex: <http://www.example.org/>
>>   endBundle
>>
>>
>>>   Instead, they can be %-escaped or incorporated in the IRI denoted 
>>> by a prefix.
>>> <PERCENT>       ::=       "%" HEX HEX
>> It is not defined what is the meaning of this escaping. What do the
>> HEX represent? If you mean "as in section 3.1.  Mapping of IRIs to
>> URIs of [RFC3987]" - then include this.
>>
>> Should be "in corporated in *a* namespace URI denoted by a prefix" -
>> as presumably that specific namespace binding does not exist yet if
>> you needed special characters in the local name.
>>
>> I'm still not sure what this mean.
>>
>> Assume you have:
>>
>> bundle
>>    prefix s11: <http://s11.no/>
>>    // ...
>> endBundle
>>
>> And in there, you want to refer to the entity for
>> <http://s11.no/?fred=soup>. Then presumably I could do:
>>
>>    entity(s11:?fred%3Dsoup)
>>
>> but only if we intend for %xx to be expanded before making the URI,
>> rather than, as suggested by PROV-N, simply be valid parts of the URI
>> by concatenation.
>>
>> If we say they are passed on directly - then I don't see a way to
>> represent the above, as %3d escape for = is valid argument in query
>> parameters - such as in ?q=1%2B1%3D2  (1+1=2) - and thus %3Dsoup not
>> understood as the original =soup.
>>
>> Note - I am not arguing for double-escaping here, as I think that
>> would become very confusing - I am just wondering why % was added here
>> in the first place, if still only a selection of possibly local names
>> (given a general prefix) is valid - I think it just adds potential
>> complexity.
>>
>> Of course the reason why this happens is because we don't have a
>> <URIREF> syntax allowed together with QUALIFIED_NAME - so the Sparql
>> analogy breaks down.
>>
>>
>>>    entity(ex:1234)  //  corresponds to IRI http://example.org/2/1234
>> should be
>>
>>    entity(ex:1234)  //  corresponds to IRI http://example.org/1/1234
>>
>>
>> I would add:
>>
>>    entity(c/)   //  corresponds to IRI http://example.org/2/c/
>>    entity(ex:/)   //  corresponds to IRI http://example.org/1//   //
>> Strict concatenation
>>
>>
>>
>> What does the following mean?
>>
>>> Note:The productions for qualifiedName and prefix are conflicting. 
>>> In the context of a namespaceDeclaration, a parser should give 
>>> precedence to the production for prefix.
>>
>> With 'prefix' here - do you mean PN_PREFIX or the keyword 'prefix' 
>> within
>>
>>> namespaceDeclaration       ::=       "prefix" QUALIFIED_NAME namespace
>> ?
>>
>> I still don't see any conflict. namespaceDeclaration requires the word
>> 'prefix', and so the following should be valid:
>>
>> bundle
>>    prefix
>>    prefix
>> <prefix>
>> endBundle
>>
>> ie. binding the prefix "prefix:" to the relative IRI reference <prefix>.
>>
>> namespaceDeclarations is optional in both bundle and namedBundle - but
>> "prefix" is not a valid expression, and can thus I don't see any
>> conflict here.
>>
>>
>>
>> 3.7.4 does not define how to interpret re-declaration of the same 
>> prefix:
>>
>> bundle
>>    prefix ex1 <http://example.org/1/>
>>    prefix ex1 <http://example.org/2/>
>>    entity(ex1:fred)
>>   endBundle
>>
>> (Personally I think they should not be allowed - Turtle will overwrite
>> sequentially - but nothing else in PROV-N depends on the sequence)
>>
>>
>> 3.7.4 does neither not define that that prefixes and defaults are
>> looked up in the named bundle before the top level bundle.
>>
>> bundle
>>    default <http://example.com/>
>>    entity(fred)
>>    bundle fred  // same fred
>>      default <http://www.example.org/>
>>      entity(fred) // Different fred!
>>    endBundle
>> endBundle
>>
>>
>>> Section 4
>>> A toplevel bundle, written _bundle decls exprs bundles endBundle_ in 
>>> PROV-N, contains:
>> This 'written' thing is very confusing, as it is not written like
>> that. I would move up the bundle production rule first - use the same
>> style as for all the other productions. The following "Contains"
>> bullet points also only make sense after seeing the production rule:
>>
>>> bundle       ::=       "bundle" (namespaceDeclarations)? 
>>> (expression)* (namedBundle)* "endBundle"
>> The bullet points are confusing, because they talk about decls and
>> exprs vs namespaceDeclarations and expressions. Only one variable
>> name, please!
>>
>>
>> namespaceDeclarations are optional - both here and in the named
>> bundle. This means that this would be valid:
>>
>> bundle
>>    entity(e1) // What is the default namespace??
>>    bundle b1
>>      // or what is it here?
>>      entity(e2)
>>    endBundle
>> endBundle
>>
>>
>> I found it confusing that the top level bundle and named bundle have
>> the same keyword. However I expect - although it is not stated
>> explicitly here - that you can't have a free-standing named bundle -
>> and that a PROV-N Document should have all expressions and named
>> bundled within a single top level bundle.
>>
>>
>>>   activity(a1, 2011-11-16T16:05:00, -,[prov:type="edit"])
>> Should be (pretty printed ;) )
>>
>>   activity(a1, 2011-11-16T16:05:00, -, [prov:type="edit"])
>>
>>
>>> The following container
>>>   (..)
>>> This container
>> s/container/bundle/g
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 5. Media Type
>> We agreed some changes to this in the telcon 2012-07-05,
>> "text/provenance-notation" and ".provn".
>>
>>> Published specification:
>>>    This specification.
>> In the actual submission I assume that this will rather refer to 
>> /tr/PROV-N/.
>>
>>
>>> may have the strings 'bundle' near the beginning
>> s/strings/string/
>>
>>
>>> Section B
>> I did not review section A or B in detail.
>>
>> Some whitespace needed after 'Cheney' both for [PROV-XML] and [PROV-RDF]
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2012 22:55:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:18 UTC