- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:37:42 +0000
- To: Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be> wrote: > I've included this text as a note: >> Note that the use of a non-empty prefix for extensions of PROV-N is >> technically not valid. The terms used in this document can be made valid by >> the addition of a prefix "prov:" to all PROV-Dictionary terms. However, this >> would greatly reduce the readability of this document. The Working Group is >> currently discussing how to address this issue before the next Working Draft >> of this document. Great! > Oh, I see. I missed that link. > Actually, I didn't realize it was a plain text file. We'll include a link in > the document and provide the grammar file this week, as we did with the owl > and xsd files. Yeah, there's no proper agreed format for EBNF, and ironically no EBNF for EBNF! >> Arghs, the precedence argument! OK for this draft then (given a yellow >> box noting this issue properly) - but this must really be addressed >> later. It does look quite inconsistent if our own extensions are not >> valid. > I assume this is the same note as above? Yes. > (...) > It's green, but nonetheless an editorial note: > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dictionary/prov-dictionary.html#dictionary-xml-schema Perfect! OK, thanks for all the hard work! As far as I am concerned it's ready to be released as FPWD. -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2013 16:38:30 UTC