- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 20:45:42 +0000
- To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- CC: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Thanks. Feedback below. On 23/11/12 17:06, Graham Klyne wrote: > On 21/11/2012 12:58, Luc Moreau wrote:> > > Hi all, > > > > Given that our CR-track documents should be frozen by Monday, it would > > be useful to have a few pairs of eyes checking the preliminary staged > > versions of the specs. > > I'm skimming PROV-DM: > > Intro: do we drop the "editors latest draft" link in the document > header for an actual published document? Maybe Ivan may want to comment on this? > > Section 1.4 (namespaces/prefixes): is this really non-normative? I'd > have thought the information here is needed to properly interpret some > of the normative material. The choice of prefix is indeed non normative. > > Should section 4.2 have a "non-normative" annotation? 4.3? (section > 4.1 does). On reflection, I'd suggest dropping the annotation from > 4.1 as there's already one for section 4. Good catch. Don't know why. It looks like a respec.js bug. Only section 4 has class informative. > > Section 5.6: if I'm reading the diagram notation correctly, this > indicates that EmptyCollection is a subtype of Collection. (That > would imply it can have HadMember relations with other Entities.) > Normally, I would expect it to be an *instance* of Collection. In the > usage here, I'd expect it to be a related type, but not a subtype. I > didn't follow the discussions of containers, so I don't know what is > the motivation for including an EmptyCollection type. Correct reading. EmptyCollection shouldn't be an instance. I can see my wine cellar today and an empty list as both empty collections (no wine left in my cellar today :-( Constraint 56 deals with membership and empty collections http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#membership-empty-collection_text > > Section 7: why bullet points? I'd suggest dropping these and just > having 3 paragraphs. Done > > Appendix A. In it's current form, the cross reference links to PROV-N > are not working. Same for PROV-O. This may be an artifact of the > staging, but I think this should be checked carefully as the document > moves to publication. > Yes > Appendix B: Should this (change-log) remain for the CR publication? > W3C requirement > References: it seems strange to me that we have a normative reference > to RFC3987, but none to RFC3986. > why? > PROV-OVERVIEW link broken (probably a staging artifact) In the process of being written Luc > #g > -- > > > On 21/11/2012 12:58, Luc Moreau wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Given that our CR-track documents should be frozen by Monday, it would >> be useful to have a few pairs of eyes checking the preliminary staged >> versions of the specs. >> >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/CR-prov-dm-20121211/Overview.html >> >> >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/CR-prov-n-20121211/Overview.html >> >> >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/CR-prov-constraints-20121211/Overview.html >> >> >> >> Known issues: >> - text about CR exit criteria, implementation report, etc needs to be >> added to >> intro. >> - documents use dated URL where they will be published, so dangling >> links. >> >> Can you let us know if you can spare a few minutes glancing at the >> documents, >> providing >> any feedback on potential bugs and/or typos. >> >> Luc >> >> PS. I am not aware that prov-o is ready yet >> >> -- Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Friday, 23 November 2012 20:47:26 UTC