Re: PROV-O editorial issue: hadOriginalSource

Hello Jacek,

The Working Group has corrected the issue you pointed out. You can find the
details of our response here:
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-476_.28hadOriginalSource.29

For the W3C process, it would be nice to get an acknowledgement from you
that this addresses your concern.
Again, thanks for your response and your interest in PROV.

Best regards,
Tom De Nies



2012/8/9 Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>

> Hello Jacek,
>
> Thanks for your comment, and clearly, your attentive reading of the
> documents!
>
> We've created ISSUE-476 for this
> https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/476
>
> You are correct in noticing that hadOriginalSource has been changed, and
> more specifically, to primary source:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#term-primary-source
> Judging from a quick search, I think the term only still occurs a few
> times in PROV-O, am I correct? (PROV-DM and PROV-N don't seem to mention it
> anymore)
> We'll handle your comment on our internal mailing list from here on, as
> not to swamp you with emails.
> You can always visit the issue URL above to check on our progress.
> Thanks again!
>
> Best regards,
> Tom
>
>
> 2012/8/9 Jacek Kopecky <j.kopecky@open.ac.uk>
>
>> Dear Prov WG,
>> I spotted that in the LC drafts, hadOriginalSource seems to have been
>> removed or renamed (could't quickly find a change log that would say
>> which), but it still occurs in the document(s) here and there.
>>
>> May all your issues in LC be editorial like this,
>> Jacek Kopecky
>>
>> --
>> The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an
>> exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC
>> 038302).
>>
>>
>>
>