W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > April 2013

Re: PROV-SEM staged, ready for review

From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:12:59 +0100
Message-Id: <62F4BE60-40D0-44AF-B1CC-C2F0A9452529@inf.ed.ac.uk>
To: "public-prov-wg@w3.org Group" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Thanks to all for their reviews.  I believe there are no outstanding reviews.

I am closing ISSUE-579 and ISSUE-635 since there were no objections.  

I will try to get the document updated and re-staged by this afternoon.  Responses to questions may take a little longer.

--James

On Apr 5, 2013, at 5:38 PM, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> PROV-SEM is now ready for review here:
> 
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/semantics/releases/NOTE-prov-sem-20130430/Overview.html
> 
> As before, because it renders math using MathML, different browsers do better/worse jobs with it.  I get the best results with Safari (Mac OS X) and Firefox does OK, while Chrome does not do very well.  Accordingly, I've put a PDF built using Safari here:
> 
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/semantics/releases/NOTE-prov-sem-20130430/prov-sem.pdf
> 
> Several people volunteered to review by next week's teleconference, when (I believe) we will vote on all remaining NOTEs.
> 
> 
> Please address the following review questions:
> 
> 1. Is the purpose of the document clear and consistent with the working group's consensus about the semantics? If not, can you suggest clarifications or improvements?
> 
> 2. Are there minor issues that can be corrected easily prior to final release?
> 
> 3. Are there blocking issues that must be addressed prior to final release? 
> 
> 4. ISSUE-579 requested that we incorporate an axiomatization using a more standard logic formalism e.g. first-order logic.  The current draft attempts to address this.  Can this issue be closed?
> 
> 5. ISSUE-635 requested that we address the issues of soundness and completeness in the semantics.  This is currently attempted, by generalizing the semantics (which unfortunately also decreases the connection to intuitive notions of time.)  As a result, we have a soundness and weak completeness result stating that any valid PROV instance has a model and vice versa.  Can this issue be closed?
> 
> --James
> 
> 
> -- 
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
> 
> 
> 


-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2013 10:13:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:35 UTC