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

Re: Query and access F2F document template

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 07:54:15 +0100
Message-ID: <4DEC7997.4080909@ninebynine.org>
To: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Simon,

I've made a note to come up with something.  In the first instance, I imagine it 
being very scope-limited, and may be hedged with operational restrictions, but I 
think that's in line with your approach.

Specifically, I think there are two cases to consider initially:
(1) given the URI of any document retrieved via HTTP, to obtain its provenance
(2) given an HTML document obtained by any means, to obtain its provenance

(I'm still a little concerned/confused by the way that the terminology of 
resources and representations is being used, but I propose to prepare something 
concrete then figure how it sits with the terminological approach.)

#g
--


Simon Miles wrote:
> Hello all (and A&Q TF especially),
> 
> Yogesh, the WG chairs and I would like to propose a skeleton for the
> document that the query and access TF will supply for the F2F1
> meeting.
> 
> A key aspect of this document is that, due to the short time before
> the meeting, it is deliberately narrow in scope.  As agreed following
> Olaf's prior proposals, we want to build on the incubator group
> chapter 6, by taking aims and assumptions from that document.
> However, we've reduced these to two key questions (suggested by Luc)
> for the F2F1:
>  1. Given the identity, I, of a resource state representation and a
> location, L, from which to retrieve provenance, how do we obtain the
> provenance of the representation from the location?
>  2. How can a browser find I and L (as above) for an HTML document
> that was downloaded, so that its provenance may be retrieved?
> 
> Please see the rest of the document skeleton for details:
>   http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1_Access_and_Query_Proposal
> 
> We welcome any comments on the skeleton structure proposed, including
> the scope decided for this document.
> 
> One specific request to Graham: you suggested Section 4 of the POWDER
> as providing a solution for the above questions (at least with regard
> to HTTP, HTML, ATOM). It looks straightforward enough to me what such
> a solution would look like (the same as described in the POWDER
> proposal but with provenance specific MIME types?), but it would be
> very helpful if you could sketch the proposal on the Wiki page as you
> understand it best.
> 
> Thanks,
> Simon
> 
Received on Monday, 6 June 2011 08:52:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:31 GMT