Re: PROV-ISSUE-630 (prov-sem-fpwd-review): PROV-SEM review for FPWD [Formal Semantics]

Thanks James, I went through the responses to my comments, and I am
happy with them.

Regards,
khalid

On 2 March 2013 16:04, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Thanks again to Simon, Palo, Khalid, Satya and Luc for their reviews.  I
> have uploaded the reviews and draft responses here:
>
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/semantics/review/ISSUE-630-khalid.txt
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/semantics/review/ISSUE-630-luc.txt
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/semantics/review/ISSUE-630-paolo.txt
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/semantics/review/ISSUE-630-satya.txt
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/semantics/review/ISSUE-630-simon.txt
>
> Some of the responses are still marked TODO to reflect places I haven't yet
> made changes but plan to do so by Monday.
>
> The fixed review copy (for comparison with the ED) is archived here also:
>
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/semantics/review/prov-sem-review-20130226.html
>
> I have raised ISSUE-635 to capture discussion on the scope and completeness
> issues Luc raised.  If there are other issues that should be flagged for
> future discussion, please raise them.
>
> Marked pending review; I propose to close this issue Monday when the
> document is staged and all TODOs in the responses are addressed (or
> transferred to TODOs in the document itself).
>
> --James
>
>
>
> On Feb 25, 2013, at 12:50 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker
> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>
> PROV-ISSUE-630 (prov-sem-fpwd-review): PROV-SEM review for FPWD [Formal
> Semantics]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/630
>
> Raised by: James Cheney
> On product: Formal Semantics
>
> Hi,
>
> I have completed a cleanup pass on the semantics.  There are definitely
> still (mostly clearly-marked) areas where work is needed.
>
> Satya, Simon, Paolo, and Khalid had indicated willingness to review by
> Thursday, so that we can vote on release with other documents as part of the
> PR release cycle.
>
> Please respond to this issue with comments so that they are tracked.
>
> Review questions:
>
> 1.  Is the purpose of the document clear and consistent with the working
> group's consensus about the semantics?  If not, can you suggest
> clarifications or improvements?
>
> 2.  Are there minor issues that can be corrected easily prior to FPWD
> release?
>
> 3.  Are there blocking issues that must be addressed prior to release as a
> first public working draft?
>
> 4.  Are there non-blocking, but important issues that should be discussed
> and resolved for future editions? (no need to list TODOs already reflected
> in the document itself, unless there is disagreement about how to resolve
> them).
>
> --James
>
>
>
>
>
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>
>
>
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>

Received on Saturday, 2 March 2013 19:00:46 UTC