- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 14:56:39 -0400
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <78D1F5C8-722A-46BB-9203-E9BCA3195EAD@rpi.edu>
Ivan, Thank you for pointing out the inconsistent flow. The draft at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/3acc7d101d59/ontology/Overview.html#description-expanded-terms should address your comment. May we close the issue? Regards, Tim Begin forwarded message: > Resent-From: public-prov-wg@w3.org > From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> > Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-373: trim qualified from "3.2 expanded" [PROV-O HTML] > Date: May 8, 2012 9:11:12 AM EDT > To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> > > Hi, I just modified the example as suggested. > The issue is now pending review, I think we can close it. > > Best, > Daniel > > 2012/5/7 Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> > PROV-ISSUE-373: trim qualified from "3.2 expanded" [PROV-O HTML] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/373 > > Raised by: Timothy Lebo > On product: PROV-O HTML > > There is a nice progression from the simple ('starting point') terms via the expanded one to the qualified ones. However... in 3.2 the example uses prov:qualifiedGeneration although, at that point, the reader does not have any idea what that means. It is probably not really important in this example anyway; I would propose to remove it. > > Thanks > > Ivan > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 18:57:11 UTC