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

RE: Access and query TF - actions for WG

From: Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 12:27:33 -0400
Message-ID: <B7376F3FB29F7E42A510EB5026D99EF205349F80@troy-be-ex2.win.rpi.edu>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
CC: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
> (The only thing I arguing against is a defined construction of
identifiers to reflect
> this usage - per Web architecture, URIs whould be opaque strings.)

OK - I'm not sure we need to go there for PIL either, but Kunze (John A.
not Steven as I originally posted) does make such an argument for ARKs.
(The ARK spec works hard to keep the subparts opaque beyond this one
affordance though. see
https://confluence.ucop.edu/download/attachments/16744455/arkcdl.pdf) 

His core arguments revolve around the issues a) that curators come and
go on shorter timescales than data, hence a mechanism to find other
copies of data/metadata is needed, and b) that if we're worried about
curators disappearing, any mechanism for maintaining a map to copies
that relies on them won't work well. Thus separating curator from thing
in an actionable 'curator/thing' identifier such that just having the
'curator/thing' string (URL) is enough to let you search for and
identify other copies (e.g. identifiers of the form 'thing' and
'curator2/thing'), is at least a rational choice despite the concerns
about opacity. 

Again, while we may want to punt on anything like this, my suspicion is
that the same arguments are applicable to provenance.

 Jim
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 16:28:03 GMT

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