- From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 12:35:48 +0100
- To: "public-prov-wg@w3.org Group" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi, I've fixed most things. I have a couple of questions/clarifications about the reviews. Perhaps we can discuss briefly today during the call. - Satya and Khalid ask > C1. In Section 1.1., it will be helpful to provide a reference to Naive Semantics. > > Minor issues: > Section 1.1 > As Khalid pointed out, need to clarify or cite "Naive Semantics". I'm not sure what is being asked for - "naive" doesn't have a technical meaning here. I added references from other occurrences of "naive semantics" to the first example. - Luc asks > - sotd paragraph: add the paragraph about feedback and errata. > Where can I find this (or what is the way to incorporate this automatically using respec)? Looking around at other documents doesn't help much, and pubrules doesn't seem to complain about this. --James On Apr 11, 2013, at 11:12 AM, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > Thanks to all for their reviews. I believe there are no outstanding reviews. > > I am closing ISSUE-579 and ISSUE-635 since there were no objections. > > I will try to get the document updated and re-staged by this afternoon. Responses to questions may take a little longer. > > --James > > On Apr 5, 2013, at 5:38 PM, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> PROV-SEM is now ready for review here: >> >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/semantics/releases/NOTE-prov-sem-20130430/Overview.html >> >> As before, because it renders math using MathML, different browsers do better/worse jobs with it. I get the best results with Safari (Mac OS X) and Firefox does OK, while Chrome does not do very well. Accordingly, I've put a PDF built using Safari here: >> >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/semantics/releases/NOTE-prov-sem-20130430/prov-sem.pdf >> >> Several people volunteered to review by next week's teleconference, when (I believe) we will vote on all remaining NOTEs. >> >> >> Please address the following 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 final release? >> >> 3. Are there blocking issues that must be addressed prior to final release? >> >> 4. ISSUE-579 requested that we incorporate an axiomatization using a more standard logic formalism e.g. first-order logic. The current draft attempts to address this. Can this issue be closed? >> >> 5. ISSUE-635 requested that we address the issues of soundness and completeness in the semantics. This is currently attempted, by generalizing the semantics (which unfortunately also decreases the connection to intuitive notions of time.) As a result, we have a soundness and weak completeness result stating that any valid PROV instance has a model and vice versa. Can this issue be closed? >> >> --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. > > > -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2013 11:36:04 UTC