W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > July 2011

RE: PROV-ISSUE-36: Section 3.2: Accessing the provenance of HTML documents [Accessing and Querying Provenance]

From: Yogesh Simmhan <simmhan@usc.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:14:44 -0700
To: 'Graham Klyne' <GK@ninebynine.org>
Cc: 'Khalid Belhajjame' <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>, 'Provenance Working Group WG' <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <060801cc4d6b$5f474f10$1dd5ed30$@usc.edu>
Probably not. It just helps us rationalize our decision in case this comes up again in the future.

| -----Original Message-----
| From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg-request@w3.org]
| On Behalf Of Graham Klyne
| Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 7:25 AM
| To: Yogesh Simmhan
| Cc: 'Khalid Belhajjame'; 'Provenance Working Group WG'
| Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-36: Section 3.2: Accessing the provenance of HTML
| documents [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
| 
| Ah, thanks.  Do you think that's worth referencing?  I'm not sure it's
| substantive enough to be worth the reader's additional attention.
| 
| #g
| --
| 
| 
| Yogesh Simmhan wrote:
| > In addition, there is a Note (#2) in the HTML4 spec that suggests that LINK is
| preferred to META in cases where the property is a URI, as in our case.
| >
| > http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#h-7.4.4.2
| > "Note. When a property specified by a META element takes a value that is a URI,
| some authors prefer to specify the meta data via the LINK element. Thus, the
| following meta data declaration:"
| >
| > --Yogesh
| >
| > | -----Original Message-----
| > | From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg-
| request@w3.org]
| > | On Behalf Of Khalid Belhajjame
| > | Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 3:51 AM
| > | To: Graham Klyne
| > | Cc: Provenance Working Group WG
| > | Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-36: Section 3.2: Accessing the provenance of HTML
| > | documents [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
| > |
| > | HI Graham,
| > |
| > | On 24/07/2011 08:14, Graham Klyne wrote:
| > | > That you raise this means it clearly needs clarifying in the text.  In
| > | > the sense I intended, <meta> could similarly be used _only_ for
| > | > documents presented as HTML.
| > | >
| > | > I think a new <meta> tag would require more new specification than
| > | > builing on the <link> work.  Technically, I don't think there's much
| > | > to choose, but I feel that hooking into the link type registry will
| > | > seem more clear-cut to potential users, hence have better take-up.
| > | > It's a judgement call.
| > |
| > | I think I agree with you. Although it is the possibility of using the
| > | <meta> tag, using "link" provides tghe advantage of being somewhat
| > | uniform across different representations, viz. "HTML" and  "HTTP".
| > | Probably we should mention in the text, as you suggested, that although
| > | the <meta> tag could be used, it will require more new specification
| > | compared with the use of <link>.
| > |
| > | Thanks, khalid
| > |
| > | >
| > | > #g
| > | > --
| > | >
| > | > Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
| > | >> PROV-ISSUE-36: Section 3.2: Accessing the provenance of HTML
| > | >> documents [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
| > | >>
| > | >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/36
| > | >>
| > | >> Raised by: Khalid Belhajjame
| > | >> On product: Accessing and Querying Provenance
| > | >>
| > | >> The Powder <link> element is used to specify the provenance of
| > | >> documents presented as HTML. I am wondering why choosing this option
| > | >> instead of simply using the <meta> tag which is supported by plain
| > | >> HTML. Is there any reason behind this choice? Was it simply because
| > | >> there was a desire to be consistent and use POWDER for accessing both
| > | >> HTTP and HTML resources?
| > | >> Khalid
| > | >>
| > | >>
| > | >>
| > | >>
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| >
| >
| >
| 
Received on Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:15:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:37 GMT