- From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 08:58:44 +0100
- To: Olaf Hartig <hartig@informatik.hu-berlin.de>
- CC: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Re: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/working/prov-aq.html Olaf: Good, thanks. It's done. (Also fixed up the WD document link) Paul: I think we're ready to ask for final approval for next PWD. #g -- On 04/05/2012 08:05, Olaf Hartig wrote: > Hey Graham, > > On Thursday 03 May 2012 22:19:43 Graham Klyne wrote: >> Olaf, >> >> It seems I misunderstood what you were suggesting. >> >> I'd be quite happy to remove the qualifying text "also referred to as >> resource on the Web" in the definition of resource - I wasn't especially >> enamoured of it, but it seemed mostly harmless at the time. >> >> Is this (removal of text as indicated above) what you are suggesting? > > Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting ;-) > > Best, > Olaf > > > >> Thanks. >> >> #g >> -- >> >> On 03/05/2012 20:17, Olaf Hartig wrote: >>> Hey Graham, >>> >>> Based on your recent changes I closed ISSUE-359 ISSUE-360 and ISSUE-361 >>> >>> I'm not entirely happy with the change that you did in the context of >>> ISSUE-358 [1]. More precisely, I don't like the first part of the current >>> >>> definition of 'Resource' in Sec.1.1. This part says: >>> "also referred to as resource on the Web" >>> >>> I propose to completely remove this part because our understanding of >>> 'resource' (in line with the understanding in AWWW) is broader than just >>> resources that are on the Web. >>> >>> Best, >>> Olaf >>> >>> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/358 >>> >>> On Thursday 03 May 2012 18:42:54 Graham Klyne wrote: >>>> All, >>>> >>>> Since the teleconference today, I've made a couple of small further edits >>>> to address outstanding issues 360 and 361 (issues submitted by Olaf). >>>> >>>> The current version of the document is now: >>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/82ac0204e878/paq/working/prov-aq.html >>>> >>>> At this point, there are just two outstanding issues, which I think may >>>> have been rendered moot by other changes to the document and to the data >>>> model. >>>> >>>> This is what we are proposing to release as the next working draft. >>>> >>>> #g >>>> -- >
Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 07:59:50 UTC