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

Re: prov-dm normative sections (ISSUE-495)

From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:37:20 +0100
Cc: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <07F4591D-C5D9-4D9D-B144-95D8FEAA2633@inf.ed.ac.uk>
To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

This seems like a good idea.  Some pedantic suggestions:

- There is a MUST in section 6 and SHOULD in section 7 - if these sections are not normative then this is confusing.  The MUST constrains extensions to PROV, while the SHOULD restates something that is said in PROV-CONSTRAINTS, so I think both can be restated to avoid over-specification.

- I think everything that could be considered normative in section 2 is restated (in more detail) in section 5.  If both sections are normative, then it there is greater possibility of confusion.  I thought section 2 was a summary or overview.  That being the case, I suggest it could be left as informative.  Or, we should specify which part is definitive in case of an apparent inconsistency.  

- Appendix A is basically just a table expressing the links between PROV-DM concepts and their expressions in PROV-N and PROV-O.  Since we do not formalize anything further about how PROV-N and PROV-O interrelate (and we've placed this out of scope AFAIK), I don't see what is normative here, so I think this can also be left informative.

- It is not stated whether figures 2,3,4 are normative.  I assume that fig. 2, 3 are not normative since they are in non-normative sections.  Fig. 4 doesn't seem to have any normative content (it just illustrates the six components in an abstract way), so I suggest that it would be safe to state that all of the figures (including UML diagrams) are purely informative.  Or, if there are figures with normative content, we should identify them.

- To avoid confusion, perhaps all non-normative sections could be explicitly marked "informative", so that their status is clear to someone who links into the document without reading the compliance section.  A related, even more pedantic suggestion is to state that the compliance section itself is normative.


> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> In his review of prov-dm (ISSUE-495), Ivan asked which sections were
>> normative.
>> I propose to introduce the following section
>> 1.1 Compliance with this document.
>> For the purpose of compliance, the normative sections of this document
>> are sections 2 and 5, and appendix A.  Information in tables is
>> normative if it appears in a normative section. UML diagrams (figure 1,
>> 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) are informative. Text in boxes labeled "Example"
>> is informative.
>> Do we have support for this?
>> Luc
>> --
>> 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
> -- 
> --
> 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

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2012 15:37:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:21 UTC