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

Re: prov-aq review for release as working draft (ISSUE-613)

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 14:47:45 +0000
Message-ID: <5113BE91.60601@ninebynine.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Ivan,

Thanks for your comments.

On 11/01/2013 12:08, Ivan Herman wrote:
> Paul
>
> two editorial comments:
>
> - In 4.2, the text says "according to the following convention" and then example uses &target=.... This suggests that the &target=... is the usual convention that implementations should use. But this is not the case. However, 4.1.1. says that the URI template defines what is used, ie, I can have a service using a different convention, say, &resource=.... I believe this should be made clearer in the text.

I agree, and have raised http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/624 to cover 
how to address this.  My own position is clear enough, but since it may be seen 
as undoing an earlier consensus I don't want to make the change without first 
highlighting the issue.

>
> - In 4.2 the text says
>
> "A provenance query service should be capable of returning RDF using the vocabulary defined by [PROV-O], in any standard RDF serialization (e.g. RDF/XML), or any other standard serialization of the Provenance Model specification [PROV-DM]"
>
> In my reading this suggests that a query service should provide _all_ the standard rdf serialisations. Is this what we say? Ie, does the service have to provide rdf/xml, turtle, json-ld, and rdfa? Or should it provide at least one of these? (In which case how does it say which one it can support?)

I agree the text needs clarifying.  But it seems we also need to agree on what 
will be recommended/required.  I've re-opened 
https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/425

Meanwhile, I've tweaked the offending text to read "in at least one of the 
standard RDF serializations" to address the particular ambiguity.  I don't 
expect this to be the final word.

> Mini-mini issues:
>
> - In the status section, bulleted list, the 'PROV-AQ' should not reference to itself.

Fixed.

>
> - A full stop is missing after the item on Target-URI

Fixed.

>
> Finally, we should not forget expanding the /ns/prov files (currently under the 'control' of Tim) to include the terms in this document. This should be done when the document is published.

Yes, we have https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/597 to remind us of this.

Many thanks.

#g
--
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 18:58:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:30 UTC