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

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

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 11:33:37 +0100
Cc: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <36A64529-359A-42D1-B816-5BEF561E9080@w3.org>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
So I successfully generated (or helped to generate) three different issues:-)

Thanks Graham!

Ivan

On Feb 7, 2013, at 15:47 , Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote:

> 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
> --
> 


----
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 Friday, 8 February 2013 10:34:05 UTC

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