- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:29:36 -0400
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Paul, On Jul 9, 2012, at 11:22 AM, Paul Groth wrote: > I was wondering if they could be headers with actual names. Like > > 1) Extension of Starting Point Terms > 2) Entities and Abstraction > 3) Describing Entities Fruther > 4) Entity Lifetimes > 5) Activity Lifetimes > > It was just an idea that could help organized things. But I'm not picky :-) Are you suggesting that these 5 subsections become Respec's <sections>? This would put them into the TOC, which would be a step towards one of Graham's requests to have all terms listed there (but I don't think that is doable with the vanilla respec). Or, use <h4> in http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#description-expanded-terms ? The current "bold in paragraph" approach is trying to minimize organizational overhead that requires novel namings that I think could become distracting. I prefer the current approach that describes the "third" category in the active voice. Thoughts? -Tim > > Paul > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: >> Paul, >> >> >> On Jul 7, 2012, at 10:50 AM, Paul Groth wrote: >> >> … >> >>> >>> ==3.2 Expanded Terms== >>> - I wonder if the 5 categories should be more prominent >> >> >> How do you suggest they become more prominent? >> Why is the bold "first, second, third, fourth, fifth" in the corresponding paragraphs inadequate? >> >> Thanks, >> Tim >> >> > > > > -- > -- > Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) > http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ > Assistant Professor > Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group > Artificial Intelligence Section > Department of Computer Science > VU University Amsterdam > >
Received on Monday, 9 July 2012 15:30:13 UTC