- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 14:03:03 +0000
- 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. Personally, I agree. I've raised > > - 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?) > > Mini-mini issues: > > - In the status section, bulleted list, the 'PROV-AQ' should not reference to itself. > > - A full stop is missing after the item on Target-URI > > 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. > > Cheers > > Ivan > > > On Jan 10, 2013, at 16:13 , Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> PROV-AQ is now ready for review. This should be considered as a "last call" working draft version. >> >> You can find the draft to review at: >> >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/b3f397c7b15c/paq/prov-aq.html >> >> Tim, Simon, Luc, Dong and Stian agreed to review but all comments are appreciated. >> >> Questions for reviewers >> - Can this be released as a last call working draft? >> - Is the name provenance access and query appropriate for the document? >> - If not, where are the blocking issues? >> - If yes, are there other issues to work on? >> >> We particularly encourage reviewers to look at Section 5 Forward provenance as this is a new section. >> >> In your review please include ISSUE-613 >> >> Thank you, >> Paul and Graham >> >> -- your friendly prov-aq editors >> >> >> -- >> -- >> 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 > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 18:58:41 UTC