[paq] using anchor or different links

Hi Yogesh,

Two things around the use of "anchor". One I would like all proposals to 
use the same terminology for consistency so could we use "anchor" in the 
html case? Also, is the "anchor" defined in the IETF spec what we mean?

If so that maybe a better term. As someone pointed out in the problem of 
overloading a name might also be the case for "target" as well.

cheers,
Paul

Yogesh Simmhan wrote:
> Some comments on Sec 3,3.1. One question I have is why we're not using "anchor"
> instead of introducing the "target" relationship for the HTTP case. Using anchor
> would allow provenance URI and the Target URI to be specified in a single header
> and also disambiguate when multiple provenance URIs exist for different Target
> URIs.
>
> == Sec 3 ==
> *) "Once provenance information information is retrieved, one needs how to
> identify the view of that resource within that provenance information. This view
> is known as the target and is identified by a Target-URI. "
> This line is vague since a view has not been defined. Also duplicate "
> information"?
>
> *) "Finally, in section Not foundarbitrary-target, we discuss the case of a
> resource ... "
> Missing reference?
>
>
> == Sec 3.1 ==
>
> *) "The same basic mechanism can be used for referencing provenance information"
>
> Should we add "when accessing a Resource using HTTP" to refer to the scenario we
> are discussing
>
> *) "Link: provenance-URI; rel="provenance" Link: target-URI; rel="target" "
> Split into multiple lines? Else it seems to break the RFC 5988.
> If we have multiple provenance URIs, how do we know whuch target URI is present
> in which provenance URI?
>
> *) "If no target link is provided then the target-URI is assumed to be the URI
> of the resources."
> Is it resource*s* ?
>
> *) Why can't we use the "anchor" parameter for the target URI? E.g.
> "Link: provenance-URI; rel="provenance"; anchor="target-URI"
>
> *) "An HTTP response may include multiple provenance link headers, indicating a
> number of different resources that are known to the responding server, each
> providing provenance about the accessed resource."
> Its is not clear if you mean that the "Resource" can have multiple Provenance
> URIs that describe one or more Target URIs.
>
> *) "...other publishers may offer provenance information about the same
> resource."
> Is this the Target resource we're talking about here?
>
>
> | -----Original Message-----
> | From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg-request@w3.org]
> | On Behalf Of Paul Groth
> | Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 12:38 PM
> | To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> | Subject: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
> |
> | Hi All,
> |
> | Graham and I have been making some changes to the PAQ document [1] that
> | we would like to request feedback on at tomorrow's telecon.
> |
> | In particular, we have updated Sections 1 and 3. We've added a section
> | on core concepts and made section 3 reflect these concepts. We think
> | this may address PROV-ISSUE-46 [2].
> |
> | Please take a look and let us know what you think.
> |
> | Thanks,
> | Paul
> |
> | Note: Section 4 Provenance discovery service is still under heavy editing
> |
> |
> | [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/paq/provenance-access.html
> | [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/46
>
>

-- 
Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
Assistant Professor
Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group
Artificial Intelligence Section
Department of Computer Science
VU University Amsterdam

Received on Thursday, 11 August 2011 18:10:24 UTC