- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 12:25:50 -0400
- To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org Group" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
James, Sorry that I did not address your specific questions explicitly. I forgot that they were there, or didn't see them :-/ Answered below. On May 17, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Timothy Lebo wrote: > James, > > My feedback from reading the latest draft is at: > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Dm-constraints_review_2012_May_17_by_Lebo > > Regards, > Tim > > On May 10, 2012, at 12:26 PM, James Cheney wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On today's call we discussed reviewing PROV-CONSTRAINTS (which to save my sanity I'll tend to write PROV-C). It was revised extensively before its FPWD release in response to reviews, but has not yet been reviewed in its current form. I would like to get a feeling for whether the new form of the document and rationale for its existence are satisfactory before further work on it. >> >> Tim Lebo and Graham Klyne have agreed to review it by next week, and I will be trying to clear the issues that I believe have been resolved. >> >> I would also like to invite anyone else interested in semantics or reasoning over provenance to review PROV-C. >> >> Especially, if there are PROV-O or OWL experts who are interested in reviewing and potentially contributing, I'd greatly appreciate it - I am not an expert on this side and guidance as to what constraints are expressible in OWL or other W3C-standard reasoning formalisms should inform the constraints. I guess techniques that map easily onto existing tools are more likely to be adopted than something ad hoc that we make up. >> >> Some review questions are below. >> >> --James >> >> Q1. [to Tim and Graham specifically] Does the FPWD of PROV-C address your blocking issues? The one at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/863fd0c4d812/model/prov-constraints.html addresses the blocking issue, which have been reduced to "highly encouraged" issues. >> >> Q2. Is the rationale for the existence of PROV-C (a) clear, and (b) something that seems worth doing? If not, how to improve? It is clear and worth doing, and is obvious why. >> >> Q3. Is the structure of PROV-C clear and appropriate? If not, how to improve? Yes. The meta discourse does describe how the sections tie together, but those statements are not in enough places (at top and from each section). Solving this problem is a matter of copy and pasting. >> >> Q4. Are the instructions regarding compliance clear and appropriate (modulo several clearly-marked TODOs)? If not, how to improve? Yes. -Tim >> -- >> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >> >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2012 16:26:33 UTC