- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 20:23:13 +0200
- To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Luc, I'm fine with all proposed resolutions except for two: For ISSUE-529 - Add to "Prov-dm, as a conceptual model, leaves the implementation of these inherited types to concrete serializations." Thus, serializations can support hadMember as a list. This would I believe address the reviewers comment specifically. ISSUE-499 - I think the clarification provided is clear but we could do more to address the recommendation that somehow the definitions seem circular. Can we say the words "instant" or immediate in these definitions. We often make appeals to prov-constraints but I believe that PROV-DM should stand on its own. Thanks Paul -- -- Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ Assistant Professor - Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group | Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science - The Network Institute VU University Amsterdam
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2012 18:23:41 UTC