Re: PROV-ISSUE-538: Notation Section 2.4, example 2 [prov-n]

Dear all,

And a proposed response for ISSUE-538. Feedback appreciated.

Luc

>
>       ISSUE-538 (Rephrasing)
>
>   * Original
>     email:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Sep/0130.html
>   * Tracker:http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/538
>   * Group Response:
>       o The first comment no longer is superseeded by this version of
>         the document.
>       o The following suggestion was adopted and implemented.
>   * References:
>   * Changes to the document:
>       o http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/b6f71383b149
>   * Original author's acknowledgement:
>
>
>     [edit
>     <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/index.php?title=ResponsesToPublicComments&action=edit&section=51>]
>



On 10/09/12 10:55, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-538: Notation Section 2.4, example 2 [prov-n]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/538
>
> Raised by: Paolo Missier
> On product: prov-n
>
> The text for the second example refers to 3 activities, but the same identifier is used in each line of syntax.
>
> The text for the second example is an overstatement. Since attributes can be specified separately, it would be more accurate to say an expression does not specify any attributes rather than saying that the activity has no attributes.
>
>
>
>

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm