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

Compliance with PROV-N (related to PROV-ISSUE-496: ivan's feedback on prov-n LC [prov-n])

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:42:18 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|4f8eff3e66684b833820d402ac4d2387o9FCgL08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|507D481A.1090409@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Dear all,

I would like to bring the group's attention to the new section 
"Compliance with this document".

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/diff-n.html#compliance-with-this-document

Feedback welcome,

Luc



On 10/16/2012 12:40 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
>
> Hi Ivan,
>
> Find below a response to your comments.
>
> Changes brought to the document appear in:
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/diff-n.html
>
> I am now closing this issue, pending your review.
>
>
> On 09/10/2012 09:28 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-496: ivan's feedback on prov-n LC [prov-n]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/496
>>
>> Raised by: Luc Moreau
>> On product: prov-n
>>
>>
>>
>> Original email: 
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Aug/0005.html
>>
>>
>> Really just minor issues I found:
>>
>> - Wouldn't it be nice (and I know this is a pain in the back side to 
>> implement) to have references from the grammar to the corresponding 
>> entry in prov-dm?
>
>
> Yes, this was added for each term, in each table following a 
> production (note
> the new link is not highlighted in the html diff).
>
>>
>> - I do not see an obvious place where the grammar can be downloaded 
>> as one piece (maybe I just missed it). I think it is important to 
>> provide this if implementers want to have their own parser…
>
> There is now a separate file. Of course that brings the question of 
> which definition is normative.
> I have added a new section for this (see next email).
>
>> - 3.4.7, Namespace declaration:
>>
>>     - minor buglet: in the bulleted item either both lines should 
>> begin with capital 'T' or none of the two
>>     - I do not understand this sentence:
>>     "the scope of a namespace declaration directly occurring in a 
>> toplevel
>>           bundle is the toplevel bundle itself, except and 
>> namedBundle it may contain".
>>      I presume what it wants to say is that a namespace declaration 
>> in a named bundle has priority over the namespace declaration in the 
>> top level bundle and somehow the editing went wrong…
>
> I have fixed the typo and edited the scoping rule. Hopefully, this 
> clarifies this issue.
>
> Regards,
> Luc
>
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
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 Tuesday, 16 October 2012 11:42:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:20 UTC