Re: PROV-AQ responses to Stian's review (part 1)

Overall, solid improvement of the document. Thanks!

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Graham Klyne <> wrote:
> Stian (
>>>> My responses are prefixed like this.

>  - although this is not a formal specification, I don't think we need
> to write in 1850's legal English, so I would kindly request the
> honourable gentlemen to provide a more directly specified
> recommendation than "matters to be arranged".
>>>> Re-organized and tightened up text.  But I don't know if I've gone far
>>>> enough to address your comment, which I didn't fully understand.

The text reads very well now. As it is inside a note, then there is no
particular recommendations anyway.

>>>> The text has been re-worked, and incorporated into to a supporting note,
>>>> as I agree it's not appropriate as part of the specification per se.  I was
>>>> previously asked to add some discussion of this, so I hope you find this is
>>>> a sensible compromise.

Very sensible. :)

> document. Could we try to write the document more like a specification
> rather than a philosophical "what-if" paper?
>>>> The text has been re-worked.

It reads much better.

>>>> I think this needs wider discussion.  It's not clear to me what term is
>>>> in most current use, though in my mind URI is the more established term
>>>> (though not necessarily the most correct term).  Maybe discussion in an
>>>> appendix would be the right way?
>>>> It's true that the latest RDF concepts and abstract syntax refers to
>>>> IRIs (, and that's a
>>>> significant element of the usage we're considering.

I think with the new IRI/URI preamble at 1.1 is OK to stay with URI;
considering that practically we are talking about HTTP and
representations that deal with URIs rather than IRIs.

Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester

Received on Monday, 11 March 2013 13:33:15 UTC