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: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 16:14:58 +0000
Message-ID: <50AFA102.2020900@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
CC: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Tim, thanks for the feedback.  It all looks very helpful.  I'll aim to work it 
in to the document next week.

#g
--

On 20/11/2012 17:16, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> 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 <http://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
> <http://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
> <mailto: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 Friday, 23 November 2012 16:15:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 23 November 2012 16:15:23 GMT