ISSUE-632: Should PROV-AQ be renamed
PROV-AQ-rename
Should PROV-AQ be renamed
- State:
- PENDING REVIEW
- Product:
- Accessing and Querying Provenance
- Raised by:
- Graham Klyne
- Opened on:
- 2013-02-26
- Description:
- This was a question asked of reviewers at the last review round. Most were OK with the current name, but this from Luc:
[[
Is the name provenance access and query appropriate for the document?
No. Access yes, query very very little, ping back (if too stay in
document) not reflected.
I would go for "provenance access and services"
]]
I think "provenance access and services" is a reasonable title, but this change will make work for other editors. IS IT WORTH THE EFFORT?
I also note that the parts of text have been updated to emphasize the querying nature of the services.
I am anticipating that Stian's proposed change to the Pingback will make it look far more like an access mechanism.
- Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- [PROV-AQ] ISSUE-632: Should PROV-AQ be renamed (from Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2013-03-11)
- PROV-AQ responses to Luc's review (from graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2013-03-11)
- PROV-ISSUE-632 (PROV-AQ-rename): Should PROV-AQ be renamed [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2013-02-26)
Related notes:
Proposing no further change. The pingback changes make it more of an access/discovery mechanism than something entirely new.
Graham Klyne, 7 Mar 2013, 15:17:02No further objections, and the provenance REC track documents have been released with reference to the current name. Propose no change.
Graham Klyne, 25 Mar 2013, 16:02:08Display change log
