- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 20:13:34 -0500
- To: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Tracker, this is ISSUE-250 -Tim On Feb 10, 2012, at 6:59 AM, Eric Stephan wrote: > 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 Sunday, 4 March 2012 01:14:03 UTC