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

Re: Access and query TF - actions for WG

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:16:28 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|d25813d3720439b67d77dff6462ec483n5JNGb08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4DFFC6BC.5060301@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Graham,
But if you want to ask a third party (assuming you have found it by (a) 
or (c)), how will you do it?
Do you need a separate protocol?
Regards,
Luc

On 20/06/11 19:01, Graham Klyne wrote:
> Luc Moreau wrote:
>> OK, I can use HTTP HEAD in order to obtain provenance-URI for some 
>> resource.
>> This provenance-URI will be returned by the same service as the one 
>> providing the resource.
>
> Correct.
>
>> How can I obtain an alternative provenance from another service?  I 
>> don't understand I
>> would get an alternative provenance-URI?
>
> I don't have a single immediate answer.  I can imagine several 
> possible mechanisms (*), but I have no way to judge which is most 
> appropriate.
>
> And in any case, it is not obvious to me that we need a *standard* for 
> such a mechanism (not saying we don't, just not sure that we do).
>
> Therefore, in the spirit of earlier posts I would suggest this is a 
> case for which we do not define a solution in a first draft, and then 
> see what
>
> #g
> -- 
>
> (*)
>
> Some possible mechanisms:
>
> (a) ask known third party service providers
> (b) the content provider could specify alernative provennce sources in 
> the content (I previously said something about not using HTTP Link: 
> and HTML <Link> together:  this might be a reason to not discourage 
> that).
> (c) Google (or semantic web equivalent) for the resource URI plus 
> "provenance" or similar
> (d) ask the resource provider (server) for alternative provenance sources
>
> Without knowing more about a specific scenario, and in particular who 
> in that scenario is expected to know what, it's not possible to 
> recommend one of these over the others.  But my hunch is that (a) and 
> (c) will prove most useful.
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 22:17:07 GMT

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