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

Access and query finalisation for F2F1

From: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 11:58:25 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTimXoZpj3UK7_r-3Uz_LtqKMEzUpdA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hello PAQ task force, all,

As said in the telecon, we would like to identify clear points
regarding access which we can aim to decide on in the limited time
available at the F2F1. As there is not yet clear consensus regarding
proposed mechanisms, these points may be mechanism-independent, but
should help us move towards agreement on the technical details. If
there is time available, we can then have open discussion on the range
of mechanisms proposed.

To start, I suggest the following points, all raised on the Wiki or
mailing list. It would be great if any of you could:
 - Comment on the overall approach of starting with such points at F2F1
 - Suggest more such points
 - Say whether the points suggested below are adequately precise
Note that it is not our aim to debate/decide on these points ahead of F2F1.

P1. There may be data regarding the provenance of a thing accessible
from multiple sources.

P2. The information required to obtain access to some provenance of a
thing may be supplied in many different ways, and we do not aim to
enumerate them all.

P3. The WG effort will concern how the provider of a thing can supply
information required to obtain access to some provenance of that thing
(which may, as a side effect, include recommendations on how others
can do the same).

P4. Regarding some provenance data obtained from dereferencing a
provenance URI, calling a provenance service, or some other means.
Which of the following is true?
  (a) It is apparent from the data itself what single thing it
describes the provenance of.
  (b) Provenance data documents a set of things and how they are
related by past occurrences, so to extract the provenance of any one
thing requires knowing how it is identified in the data.
  (c) Something else.

P5. Regarding some provenance data obtained from dereferencing a
provenance URI, calling a provenance service, or some other means.
Which of the following is true?
  (a) To meet the standard, it should be immutable.
  (b) It can change over time without restriction.
  (c) To meet the standard, there are particular ways in which it
should not change, e.g. any one account should remain as it was.

Thanks,
Simon
Received on Sunday, 26 June 2011 10:59:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:32 GMT