Re: PROV-SEM staged, ready for review

Hi James,
I did a quick review and the document reads well.


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?
>
> Yes the document is easy to follow.


> 2. Are there minor issues that can be corrected easily prior to final
> release?
>
Yes, some minor points are listed below

>
> 3. Are there blocking issues that must be addressed prior to final release?
>
No

>
> 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?
>
Yes

>
> 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?
>
Can be closed - was not able to review completeness properly (will need to
cross-check with cited axioms in the Section 6.2.4).

Minor issues:
Section 1.1
As Khalid pointed out, need to clarify or cite "Naive Semantics".

Section 2.1
The two sentences together are a bit confusing "Identifiers may or may not
be URIs. Identifiers are viewed as variables from the point of view of
logic."
If they are URIs they cannot be variables - I am not sure the statement
about URIs is needed here.

Section 2.3
This may be nit picking, should "is a linear order" be replaced by more
generic "partial order"?

Section 4.4.12
In the Remark "(or that of can be larger)" "larger" is not clear

Thanks.

Best,
Satya


>
> --James
>
>
> --
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>
>
>