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

Re: PROV-AQ updates

From: Olaf Hartig <hartig@informatik.hu-berlin.de>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 22:10:11 +0100
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <1406879.fFezQG2li5@porty>
On Monday 09 January 2012 20:52:26 Graham Klyne wrote:
> Olaf,
> 
> Thanks again...
> 
> On 09/01/2012 17:41, Olaf Hartig wrote:
> > Dear Graham,
> > 
> > On Monday 09 January 2012 15:08:38 Graham Klyne wrote:
> >> Oleg,
> >> 
> >     ( ... Olaf ;-)
> 
> Oops, sorry.

No problem.

> [...]
> 
> >>> * Sec.3.1.1: "There may be multiple provenance-service link header
> >>> fields, and these may appear in the same document as provenance
> >>> links
> >>> ..." -- What does "the same document" refer to? Furthermore, I don't
> >>> understand how a provenance-service link may appear as a provenance
> >>> link.
> >> 
> >> That's a cut-and-paste error: it should have been "same HTTP
> >> response".
> >> 
> >> I'm a little puzzled by the second part of this comment:
> >> provenance-service and provenance are separate links.  Is this not
> >> clear?
> > 
> > It's clear that provenance-service and provenance are separate links.
> > What I wanted to point out was the following: The way the second part
> > of the sentence is written, it may be interpreted to says that
> > provenance-service link header fields "may appear [somewhere] as
> > provenance link header fields" but what the second part of the sentence
> > was meant to say --I guess-- is "provenance- service link header fields
> > may appear in _a_ HTTP response _in which also_ provenance link header
> > fields may appear."  Or maybe even better: "provenance- service link
> > header fields may appear in _a_ HTTP response _together with_
> > provenance link header fields."
> 
> OK, now reads:
> [[
> There may be multiple provenance-service link header fields, and these may
> appear in an HTTP response together with provenance link header fields
> (though, in simple cases, we anticipate that provenance and
> provenance-service link relations will not be used together).
> ]]

Exactly what I had in mind ;-)

> >> [...]
> >> 
> >>> * Sec.3.3: I assume the RDF properties introduced in this section
> >>> (prov:hasProvenance, prov:hasAnchor, and prov:hasProvenanceService)
> >>> may
> >>> not only be used for the resource that is represented as RDF but
> >>> also
> >>> for any resource that the RDF representation describes. If that's
> >>> true,
> >>> we may want to add a corresponding comment to this section (although
> >>> I
> >>> understand that this is not the focus of this section).
> >> 
> >> I added this to the initial paragraph: "(The same RDF terms may be
> >> used to indicate provenance of other resources too, but discussion of
> >> such usage is beyond the scope of this section.)"
> > 
> > At this point in the text it is not clear what "the same terms" refers
> > to
> > (because it is not clear that we introduce terms/properties for this
> > purpose). To address this issue, I propose to add the following
> > sentence before the brackets:  "For this purpose three new RDF
> > properties, prov:hasProvenance, prov:hasAnchor, and
> > prov:hasProvenanceService, are defined in the following. (The same
> > properties may ..."
> 
> I careless there - thanks for catching it.
> 
> Section content now reads:
> 
> [[
> If a resource is represented as RDF (in any of its recognized syntaxes,
> including RDFa), it may contain references to its own provenance using
> additional RDF statements. For this purpose three new RDF properties,
> prov:hasProvenance, prov:hasAnchor, and prov:hasProvenanceService, are
> defined in the following. (These terms may be used to indicate provenance
> of other resources too, but discussion of such usage is beyond the scope of
> this section.)
> 
> The RDF property prov:hasProvenance is defined as a relation between two
> resources, where the object of the property is a resource that provides
> provenance information about the subject resource. Multiple
> prov:hasProvenance assertions may be made about a subject resource. This
> property corresponds to a "provenance" link relation used with an HTTP Link
> header field, or HTML <link> element.
> 
> Property prov:hasAnchor specifies an entity-URI used in the provenance
> information to refer to the RDF document. This corresponds to use of the
> "anchor" parameter in an HTTP "provenance" Link header field, or an "anchor"
> link relation in an HTML <link> element, which similarly indicate a URI
> used by the provenance information to refer to the described document.
> 
> Property prov:hasProvenanceService specifies a service-URIs associated with
> the RDF document for possible access to provenance information. This
> property corresponds to a "provenance-service" link relation used with an
> HTTP Link header field, or HTML <link> element.
> ]]

Looks good!

Cheers,
Olaf


> #g
> --
Received on Monday, 9 January 2012 21:13:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:11 UTC