- From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 16:02:48 +0100
- To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <14719EA8-ACBD-43A4-9D3B-F2E3EE0537B1@inf.ed.ac.uk>
('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
I believe this issue has been addressed, modulo some points raised in Tim's recent review [1]. Tim, will addressing the related points in your review suffice to close the issue? --James [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Dm-constraints_review_2012_May_17_by_Lebo On Apr 11, 2012, at 4:09 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > PROV-ISSUE-346 (distinguish-constraints): types of constraints unclear [prov-dm-constraints] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/346 > > Raised by: Timothy Lebo > On product: prov-dm-constraints > > by 3.1.3 Generation > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-dm-20120402/prov-dm-constraints.html#term-Generation > > > I was already dealing with (and postponing) "interpretations". The document did not explain to me how or when I should read/use them. > > Now I'm given an in-place constraint and a structural constraint (for generation). > > The only time these were distinguished was in Section 1, which gave a somewhat reasonable summary AS LONG AS the distinction (and how to use them) is explained further down. By this section 3.1.3, it hasn't become clear and I'm now confused. > > Recommend adding a discussion about the distinction among these in Section 1 - as well as at the beginning of section 3 in some meta-discourse. > > > This is a BLOCKER for public release of draft, because it leads to too much confusion. > > > > >
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Monday, 21 May 2012 15:03:36 UTC