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

Re: PROV-DICTIONARY internal review for first public working draft (ISSUE-614)

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:56:11 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtkF2nUiJsssF8yc=FCqQSrB52dTsu1rvXN4ALxd1QYtkQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be> wrote:
> Hello Stian,
> wow, and just when I thought I was done for the day... ;)


> However, some of your blocking issues (8b, 39) are to include links to the
> downloadable extension grammar and xml schema. Is this really necessary for
> a first working draft of a document on Note track? Because these files still
> need to be created, which will consume some time, and additional review.
> This seems strange to me, especially since the previous (problematic)
> iteration of Dictionary made it to WD5 of PROV-DM...

No, considering it is only a first working draft I agree they should
not all be blocking.

However the reason I would be a bit stricter with this than with WD5
is that by now PROV-O and friends are very stable, and growing in
popularity and usage ; and thus something like PROV Dictionary is more
likely to be picked up at this point - therefore it's good to get some
of the fundamentals right early, like namespaces.

OK, I've gone through, and now I consider only these as blocking:

9, 11, 15, 16, 17, 20, 34, 39, 41

They should generally be quick-fix or search/replace.

For PROV-O and PROV-XML only download link would be needed - forget
about the explanation for now.  Download links is specially important
for those two as that's how it can be used/tested.

Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 15:57:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:28 UTC