Re: PROV-SEM staged, ready for review

Hi James,


On 11 April 2013 12:35, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've fixed most things.
>
> I have a couple of questions/clarifications about the reviews.  Perhaps we
> can discuss briefly today during the call.
>
>
> - Satya and Khalid ask
>
> > C1. In Section 1.1., it will be helpful to provide a reference to Naive
> Semantics.
>  >
>
>
>  > Minor issues:
>  > Section 1.1
>  > As Khalid pointed out, need to clarify or cite "Naive Semantics".
>
> I'm not sure what is being asked for - "naive" doesn't have a technical
> meaning here.  I added references from other occurrences of "naive
> semantics" to the first example.
>

In that case, I think it will be sufficient to state that, as one may think
there is a class of semantics called naive.

Thanks, khalid


>
>
> - Luc asks
>
>  > - sotd paragraph: add the paragraph about feedback and errata.
>  >
>
>
> Where can I find this (or what is the way to incorporate this
> automatically using respec)?  Looking around at other documents doesn't
> help much, and pubrules doesn't seem to complain about this.
>
> --James
>
>
>
> On Apr 11, 2013, at 11:12 AM, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>
>
>