> Hello Luc & others, > > I have reviewed the PROV-N document over the weekend. > The document is well structured, and reads well. It is very usable as > an "advanced reference" when wanting to know more about one of the > notations. (which is exactly its purpose I suppose) > > Question for reviewers: Can the document be published as Last Call working draft? > Yes, I only have minor phrasing and consistency remarks below. > > Minor remarks and typos: > > - 2.1 Example 2 > > In the following expressions, the optional activity a along with the > generation and usage identifiers g2 and u1: Should be "In the > following expressions, the optional activity a is specified along with > the generation and usage identifiers g2 and u1:" Text was updated. > > - 2.2 EBNF Grammar > > Each expression non-terminal expression, i.e., entityExpression, > activityExpression etc., This sentence is a bit weird. Should the > first "expression" be omitted? Sentence was fixed > > - 2.5 Comments > typo: "cooments" (is fixed in latest editors draft I think) > done > - 3.1.4 - 3.1.8 > > Even though the production usageExpression allows for expressions > used(a2, -, -) and used(-; e2, -, -), these expressions are not valid > in PROV-N, since at least one of id, entity, time, and attributes must > be present. a bit further, in 3.1.6 Start, this note is written as > Note: Even though the production startExpression allows for > expressions wasStartedBy(e2, -, -, -) and wasStartedBy(-; e2, -, -, > -), these expressions are not valid in PROV-N, since at least one of > id, trigger, starter, time, and attributes must be present. > > This is a more general issue than just in this section. I would > be consistent here and add the "Note:" everywhere where this > type of comment is made. fixed > > Also, it seems that these notes do not always make sense. For > example, in 3.1.4, it says that at least one of id, entity, time, and > attributes must be present, but that used(-; e2, -, -) is not valid, > even though it contains an entity. (this was fixed in the latest > editor's drfat I saw) The same issue occurs in 3.1.6 Start: At least > one of id, trigger, starter, time, and attributes must be present, but > wasStartedBy(e2, -, -, -) and wasStartedBy(-; e2, -, -, -) are > invalid. However, a starter or a trigger is present. Did you mean: at > least one of id, activity, time, and attributes must be present.? no, I think this is fine [PM] > > The same happens with 3.1.7 End. 3.1.8 Invalidation has the correct > remark: "at least one of id, activity, time, and attributes must be > present." (but I would add the "Note:" here as well) again, they look ok to me [PM] > > > - 3.3.5 Influence Here id is the optional influence identifier, e2 is > an entity identifier, e1 is the identifier for an ancestor entity that > e2 depends on, and [ex:param="a"] is the optional set of attributes. > > I think the use of "depends on" is a bit unlucky here, since it > implies that the influenced entity/activity/agent is directly > dependent on the influencing entity/activity/agent, while this is > actually a lighter relation than that I think. Just rephrasing this > to something like "e1 is the identifier for an ancestor entity that e2 > was influenced by" solves this. fixed > > From here on everything looked fine to me :) > > Congrats on a fine document! > > - Tom > > > 2012/7/5 Luc Moreau > Hi Stian and Tom, > > Thanks for volunteering for reading prov-n. > > Find the details below. > > In addition, could you look at the two sections recently added. > > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-n.html#extensibility > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-n.html#media-type > > Thanks, > Luc > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: PROV-ISSUE-438 (prov-n-post-f2f3-review ): Final review before last call vote [prov-n] > Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:23:58 +0000 > Resent-From: > Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:23:46 +0000 > From: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker > Reply-To: Provenance Working Group > To: > > PROV-ISSUE-438 (prov-n-post-f2f3-review ): Final review before last call vote [prov-n] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/438 > > Raised by: Luc Moreau > On product: prov-n > > > This is the issue to collect feedback on prov-n document (version created after F2F3). > > Document to review is available from: > > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-n-20120629/prov-n.html > > Question for reviewers: Can the document be published as Last Call working draft? > > Cheers, > Luc > > >