W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > November 2012

RE: Request review of prov-dc

From: Miles, Simon <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:08:53 +0000
To: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AA3FA22D967B5C4E8948AADF719DA7C40164BFD0@AM2PRD0311MB409.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Hello Daniel, Kai,

I've reviewed the updated DC mapping document as you linked below. I assume that it is the correct version from your email, but notice it is dated 28 October 2012.

I am happy for it to be released as FPWD.

I will raise an issue with my detailed comments.


Dr Simon Miles
Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166

Determining the trustworthiness of new electronic contracts:
From: dgarijov@gmail.com [dgarijov@gmail.com] on behalf of Daniel Garijo [dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es]
Sent: 26 November 2012 12:04
To: Craig M Trim
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Request review of prov-dc

Hi Craig,
I incorpored your feedback to the document:

Since you rewrote some paragraphs, I added you as a contributor
in the author list.

ISSUE 603 is now pending review.


2012/11/23 Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es<mailto:dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>>
Thanks for your feedback, Craig.
Tracker, this is issue 603: https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/603

2012/11/22 Craig M Trim <cmtrim@us.ibm.com<mailto:cmtrim@us.ibm.com>>

Hi Paul, et al -

I've performed an initial review, focused entirely on the introduction.  It's going to take me longer to go through the rest of the document, including the more technical mappings.  I've made enough changes in the introduction however, that I felt it worthwhile to send out my changes.  No obligation to accept these verbatim; my style is by no means perfect.  However, as is often the case in writing, what we write in summary makes a better introduction.  I've moved the conclusion up to the beginning, as it seemed the clearest way to approach the document.  Likewise, the example has been moved toward the end of the document.  By the time the reader approaches the example, the terms and expressions used should be much clearer (the text provides insight to the example in this case, not the other way around).

I'm attaching multiple formats - I originally edited in Word 2003, but have an open office writer and PDF version too - something here for everyone :)

(See attached file: PROV-DC revision.doc)(See attached file: PROV-DC revision.pdf)(See attached file: PROV-DC revision.odt)


Paul Groth ---11/21/2012 05:40:08 PM---Hi Simon, Craig, all: Can you go ahead and review prov-dc for release as a first public working

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl<mailto:p.t.groth@vu.nl>>
To: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk<mailto:simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>>, Craig M Trim/Costa Mesa/IBM@IBMUS,
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-prov-wg@w3.org>>, Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es<mailto:dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>>
Date: 11/21/2012 05:40 PM
Subject: Request review of prov-dc
Sent by: pgroth@gmail.com<mailto:pgroth@gmail.com>

Hi Simon, Craig, all:

Can you go ahead and review prov-dc for release as a first public working draft?

You can find the document here:


The key question is to see whether the document is ready for release as an fpwd.

If it is possible, can you have your review done by Nov. 29?

Anyone else in the working group is also invited to review the document.

Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2012 11:09:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 28 November 2012 11:09:37 GMT