W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > April 2012

Re: Review Prov-AQ document

From: Olaf Hartig <hartig@informatik.hu-berlin.de>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:29:15 +0200
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Cc: Sam Coppens <Sam.Coppens@ugent.be>
Message-ID: <1690418.Dil0nYc4hm@porty2>
Hey Sam,

Thanks for your review. Some comments inline ...

On Friday 20 April 2012 18:21:56 Sam Coppens wrote:
> Hello all,
> [...]
> I propose one addition:
> 
> I would consider the ability to do round-trips (Going from the
> resource to its provenance information and back to the resource.) When
> provenance information is accessed using the HTTP protocol, the
> response of the accessed provenance infromation must then also include
> an HTTP header denoting the the subject of the provenance information.
> E.g. Link: target-URI; rel="isProvenanceFor"; anchor="provenance-uri".
> The same can be done for provenance information accessed via REST
> services or resources represented in HTML or RDF. Maybe there is a
> good reason not to do this, but then I would include this motivation
> into the document.

I don't see why this would be necessary. I mean, the representation of 
provenance information which you may retrieve by dereferencing a provenance 
URI, will already mention all relevant target URIs. So, why would it be 
necessary to mention them again in the response header? Or, do I miss 
something here?
 
> I propose some modifications:
> 
> Section 1.1: The term resource needs some clarification. I would
> indicate that a resource can be: an information resource or a
> non-information resource. (This already implies that the resource URI
> can be dereferencable or not.) This makes explicit that provenance can
> be recorded for non-information resources (e.g. a person) and for
> information resources (e.g. an RDF representation of that person or an
> HTML representation of that person, etc.)

I don't think it's a good idea to mention these terms ( "information resource" 
and "non-information resource"). They are heavily debated and may disappear in 
a future revision of AWWW. Furthermore, to my knowledge,  the term "non-
information resource" is not (explicitly) defined in any of the W3C documents.

Best,
Olaf


 
> Section 3.4: Composite object-packaging formats. ORE and MPEG-21 DIDL
> are usually not packaged into ZIP archives, their datastreams
> sometimes are for storage reasons. BagIt is a sort of
> `self-descriptive` ZIP archive by specification, meant to be
> transmitted over the Web (e.g. it includes checksum information of the
> included datastreams for validation after transmission). Also Mets
> might be considered more relevant these days then MPEG-21 DIDL in the
> digital library and archive community.
> 
> Section 4.2: ..., defined by the provenance ontology [PROV-O]. The
> specified RDF object properties, e.g., prov:ProvenanceService, are at
> this moment not specified by PROV-O. Thus, PROV-O and PROV-AQ are out
> of sync.
> 
> Section 7: ... secure HTTP (https) should be used. Why `should`?
> Shouldn`t this be `may`, and if not, why? Now it seems provenance
> information should always be retrieved using https.
> 
> Some spelling corrections:
> 
> Section 3.2: The target-uri given by the anchor link element specifies
> an identifier for the document ... instead of ...specifies an
> specifies an identifier ...
Received on Monday, 23 April 2012 19:29:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:07:03 GMT