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

Just to say that I forgot to put a link to the document below.  It is at:

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/semantics/prov-sem.html

However, I've noticed there are problems with the math formula rendering.  This seems to be because MathJax is only available using http:// urls while we need to use https:// for JavaScript.  A long-term fix may be to host the MathJax scripts somewhere locally on w3.org so that we can reference them with a https:// url.

The workaround for now is for me to save it locally after all of the mathematical formulas have been replaced (which is how we will build the final version too just like with all respec-based documents).  So please review this version:

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/semantics/prov-sem-review-20130226.html

--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
> 
> 
> 
>