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

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

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 10:50:52 -0400
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <00244FB7-AD89-4A72-9F44-6FD18E24ED55@w3.org>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Looks o.k. to me. Thanks.

Ivan

On Oct 16, 2012, at 07:42 , Luc Moreau wrote:

> 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
> 
> 


----
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
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2012 14:51:19 UTC

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