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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-600 (prov-pingback): Add simple provenance pingback header spec to PROV-AQ [Accessing and Querying Provenance]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:16:53 -0500
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Message-Id: <C1B8209A-F5AF-4236-BD86-28201831E284@rpi.edu>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Graham,

Thanks for putting together this section. Please find below some suggestions.

Regards,
Tim


1)
nit
"dealing with question such as"
->
"dealing with questions such as"


2)

It might be helpful to introduce the distinction between publisher and consumer in the introduction,  e.g.,

"The mechanisms discussed in previous sections are primarily concerned with accessing historical provenance information, dealing with question such as:"
->
"The mechanisms discussed in previous sections are primarily concerned with how consumers access historical provenance information from publishers. These mechanisms help answer questions such as:"

and

"These questions can be turned around to consider the forward-looking use of a resource, with questions like:"
->
"These questions can be turned around to consider a publisher's forward-looking questions about a resource, like:"


2.5)
typo

rsource
->
resource


3)

"Answering such questions is assumed to be based on cooperation of other parties who actually use a rsource (or maybe of search engines that can discover such usage)."
->
"The ability to answer forward-looking questions requires some cooperation among the parties who use a resource. For example, a search engine could discover such downstream resource usage."


4)
The meat of the technical solution is hidden in the paragraph:
"a resource may have an associated "ping-back" URI "
It is not clear that _this_ is the main topic of the section, and the _mechanism_ that should be used.



5)
Trying to reuse some existing terms to simplify:

" a resource may have an associated "ping-back" URI which can be presented with forward provenance information about how the resource has been used"
->
" a resource may have an associated "ping-back" URI which may be presented with PROV assertions about the resource."



6)
Trying to simplify.

"When the resource is used, and new provenance information created that refers to it, the user may perform an HTTP POST operation to the pingback URI where the POST request body contains the new provenance information in one of the recognized provenance formats."
->
"The user may perform an HTTP POST operation to the pingback URI where the POST request body contains new provenance information in one of the recognized provenance formats."


7)
" The for interoperability"
->
"For interoperability"


8)
We call them Entities now :-)

"construction of some new artifact"
->
"construction of some new entity"



9)

Suggest to make the styling on domains different then regular text (e.g. "wile-e.example.org")


10)
"proveance-URI" 
->
"provenance-URI"


11)
Add a link to the section in the sentence:
"The first of the links in the response is the proveance-URI that has been described previously."


12)
Borrow some owlness?

"The second is a separate resource"
->
"The second link is a distinct resource"



13)
prov:tracedTo does not exist any more. Change to prov:wasDerivedFrom?



14)
"200 Thanks!"
->
"200 OK"


15)
" the links would relate the indicated URIs to the POST request URI."
->
" the links would relate to the POST request URI acme.example.org/pingback/super-widget."



16)
Huh?

"The only defined operation for a pingback resource is a POST, which is required to provide some provenance information that possible to the original resource with which the pingback is associated. "
attempt:
"The only defined operation for a pingback resource is a POST, which may accept some provenance information about the original resource with which the ping back was provided. "





On Nov 20, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote:

> I've added some pingback specification text to the PROV-AQ editor's draft. Could interested parties please review.
> 
> Essentially, it consists one one new link relation (provPingback), and some text describing how the related resource may be used (i.e. for POSTING new provenance information).
> 
> Most of the new text is at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/prov-aq.html#forward-provenance
> 
> See issue tracker comments for more details.
> 
> #g
> --
> 
> On 20/11/2012 12:30, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-600 (prov-pingback): Add simple provenance pingback header spec to PROV-AQ [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/600
>> 
>> Raised by: Graham Klyne
>> On product: Accessing and Querying Provenance
>> 
>>> From discussions with Tim and Paul at ISWC2012.  We identified a really simple pingback spec based on one new link relation, and agreed this could be added to the PROV-AQ spec in the current cycle.
> 
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2012 17:17:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 20 November 2012 17:17:25 GMT