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

Review of PROV_CONSTRAINTS issues (ISSUE-582, ISSUE-586, ISSUE-587, ISSUE-588)

From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 13:19:10 +0100
Message-Id: <1111A2E6-5B48-4381-A9DA-53B11BF82ABA@inf.ed.ac.uk>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi,

I have made minor changes addressing ISSUE-582, ISSUE-586, ISSUE-587, ISSUE-588.  These are the most minor ones requiring few changes.  There are no changes affecting the behavior of implementations in this batch, though some of the text is in normative sections.

The summaries and responses are below; the current versions of responses (draft and pending review) are here.  These issues have been marked "pending review".  Please respond (to this message or to the appropriate issue thread) with any objections or suggested improvements by next Wednesday (Oct. 31)  if you disagree with the proposed response.

--James
> 
> ISSUE-582 (document-instance)
> 
> 	 Original email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Oct/0004.html
> 	 Tracker: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/582
> 	 Summary: 'of their respective documents.' should be '... of their respective instances.'
> 	 Group response:
> 		 We agree that 'of their respective documents.' should be '... of their respective instances.'
> 	 References:
> 	 Changes to the document:
> 		 Suggestion adopted.
> 	 Original author's acknowledgement:
> 
> [edit] ISSUE-586 (toplevel-bundle-description)
> 
> 	 Original email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Oct/0004.html
> 	 Tracker: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/586
> 	 Summary: The description of 'toplevel instance' as 'set of statements not appearing in a bundle' is unclear
> 	 Group response:
> 		 This is not a formal constraint; this description is potentially misleading, since it is allowed for multiple copies of the same statement to appear in toplevel instance and bundles.
> 	 References:
> 	 Changes to the document:
> 		 Clarify description of "toplevel instance" to just say that there is a toplevel instance and possibly some named instances, called bundles, and they are all treated independently for the purpose of validity checking (so presence or absence of statements in one instance never affects the validity of another).
> 	 Original author's acknowledgement:
> 
> [edit] ISSUE-587 (rdf-analogies)
> 
> 	 Original email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Oct/0004.html
> 	 Tracker: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/587
> 	 Summary: Concerns about analogies to RDF blank nodes/semantics
> 	 Group response:
> 		 We agree that these analogies may cause more confusion than benefit and will remove them (since we are not reusing normative material from RDF here.)
> 	 References:
> 	 Changes to the document:
> 		 Analogies to RDF blank nodes/semantics have been removed.
> 	 Original author's acknowledgement:
> 
> [edit] ISSUE-588 (strictly-precedes-irreflexive)
> 
> 	 Original email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Oct/0004.html
> 	 Tracker: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/588
> 	 Summary: It is never specified explicitly that "strictly-precedes" is irreflexive
> 	 Group response:
> 		 We define strictly-precedes as a strict preorder, which is defined as irreflexive in the glossary, but agree that this should be specified more explicitly. We will adopt the proposed change.
> 	 References:
> 	 Changes to the document:
> 		 Change adopted
> 	 Original author's acknowledgement:
> 

-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Friday, 26 October 2012 12:19:50 UTC

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