Re: mini-review of PROV-OVERVIEW

Hi Paolo

Thanks but I wasn't finished :-)

Paul

On Nov 26, 2012, at 19:42, Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi,
>   some minor comments:
> 
> -  should PROV-DC be part of the list as a note?
> 
> - PROV-O is listed before PROV-DM everywhere they are mentioned together. but initially PROV-O is defined as "a mapping from PROV to ..."  which suggests it follows PROV-DM
>    this also occurs in the table of sec. 2
> 
> sec 2
> 
> - is "Core Spec" a type of audience?  should it be "implementors", or some other category?
> 
> - the text next to PROV-DM is a paste of that of PROV-XML. Proposed:  "a specification of the PROV data model".  
>    Should it come before PROV-XML?  (and before PROV-O as suggested above?)
> 
> - "Developers seeking to retrieve or publish provenance "  propose to add: "using Web protocols" 
> 
> - I am not super happy with "PROV-N mapping to text".  I think it's more than text, it's a relational encoding. If you don't like  "relational" here, fine, I still think it's more than "text".. :-)
>    maybe specify PROV-N specifies a grammar for a formal language designed to be human readable?
> 
> minor
> 
> - a set of documents defining  -> a set of documents that define
> - applying  -> that apply 
> - it should be obvious, but possibly clarify that the contributors are in alpha order
> 
> 
> HIH  --Paolo
> 
>  -- 
> -----------  ~oo~  --------------
> Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org 
> School of Computing Science, Newcastle University,  UK
> http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier