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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-459 (prov-constraints-lc-review): PROV-CONSTRAINTS review [prov-dm-constraints]

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:09:24 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|b91f504d80cbeb4220a91bb5f1879f5do6MF9m08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|500D5B14.4090309@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org

... As some noted I shouldn't apologise for getting the document ready ...
for the delay in doing so!

Luc

On 23/07/12 15:04, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Apologies in getting the prov-constraints document ready.
> It is now available for review at
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-constraints-20120723/prov-constraints.html 
>
>
> It would be great if we can still follow the timetable we agreed on 
> the call last week.
>
> Regards,
> The prov-c-team
>
> On 20/07/12 12:02, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-459 (prov-constraints-lc-review): PROV-CONSTRAINTS review 
>> [prov-dm-constraints]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/459
>>
>> Raised by: James Cheney
>> On product: prov-dm-constraints
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This issue is to capture review comments for the next draft of 
>> PROV-CONSTRAINTS, which will be released soon.
>>
>> Please answer the following review questions:
>>
>> 1.  Is PROV-CONSTRAINTS ready to be released as a last call working 
>> draft (modulo editorial issues and resolution to the below issues)?
>>
>> 2.  Regarding ISSUE-346: Is the role, meaning, and intended use of 
>> each type of inference or constraint clear?  
>> (http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/346)
>>
>> 3.  Regarding ISSUE-451: Are there any objections to the 
>> revision-is-alternate inference? 
>> (http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/451)
>>
>> 4.  Regarding ISSUE-454: Are the rules for disjointness clear and 
>> appropriate? (http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/454)
>>
>> 5.  Regarding ISSUE-458: Should influence (and therefore all 
>> subrelations, including communication) be irreflexive, or can it be 
>> reflexive (i.e., can wasInfluencedBy(x,x) be valid)?  
>> (http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/458)
>>
>> 5.  Are there any objections to closing other open issues on 
>> PROV-CONSTRAINTS?  They are:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/387
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/394
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/452
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/453
>>
>> 6.  Are there any new issues concerning definitions, constraints, or 
>> inferences? If so, please raise as new issues to be addressed before 
>> LC vote, ideally with a suggested change that would address the issue.
>>
>>
>> --James
>>
>>
>>
Received on Monday, 23 July 2012 14:10:21 UTC

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