- From: Stephan Zednik <zednis2@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:37:33 -0600
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Cc: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <F90874D1-3D72-46AE-8B90-E4FA36AE6931@rpi.edu>
Resending, because my response last week apparently did not send successfully :-( On Apr 11, 2013, at 8:56 AM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote: > Hi Stephan, prov-xml editors > > I'm happy for prov-xml to be released as a final note. It's a straightforward and clear presentation. > > My Comments: > > > #Section 1 > > * "This specification goal" --> "This specification's goal" > * italize - "This specification goal is to provide a succinct definition of the XML form of PROV-DM" DONE > > # Section 1.1 > > * add prefix prov: as a convention DONE > * what is OXM? Removed OXM, added "Object-to-XML" > > # Section 2.3 > > * A sudden mention of PROV-N. Can we get a simple two sentence intro to PROV-N. I Added the following: The PROV Notation (PROV-N) is a serialization of the PROV Data Model described in [PROV-N]. Examples in the [PROV-DM] document are encoded using PROV-N. Because of the heavy use of PROV-N syntax in [PROV-DM], the PROV-XML editors feel it is important to present a comparison of the PROV-N and PROV-XML syntaxes and justifications behind the select syntax decisions in PROV-XML. > > * Maybe lead with the general xml pattern that is followed and then justify by analogy to PROV-N Do you think this is still needed? > * "Stating all type information using the PROV type attribute assists in interoperability with non-PROV-XML encoding of PROV." - Why? By making type information explicit and easier to transform for XSLT and similar tools. Do you think I should add this explanation to the note or remove the statement about interoperability? > > > # Section 3 > > * I like table 1 > * Why no link back to dm definitions? Adding. > * What's the provenance of the examples? just out of curiosity Examples in the note should be similar to examples in examples/eg-40, many of which were initially modeled after examples from the DM rec. > > # Appendix > > * do we want the schemas here? we don't do this with the ontology See PROV-ISSUE-661 > > > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) > http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ > Assistant Professor > - Web & Media Group | Department of Computer Science > - The Network Institute > VU University Amsterdam
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2013 16:38:00 UTC