- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 18:59:44 +0200
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
- CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Simon, i think this is the better reasoning behind target-URIs and probably something we should incorporate in the Model document. It will also make the concepts easier to explain and independent from the Model. Let's see what Graham thinks, Paul Simon Miles wrote: > Paul: >>> I still think there's a case for allowing a target-uri to be >>> specified when you don't want to put the URL of the resource in >>> the provenance. For example, many sites have long urls for >>> implementation purposes but may want to describe provenance in >>> terms of a "better" URL e.g. A permalink. > > I agree this is an important reason for having the target URI > (somewhere) - even if a resource itself is an entity and ivpOf > relations can be expressed in the provenance data, the identifiers > that clients have for it may not be the ones used in provenance for > whatever reasons, or the client may not have an identifier at all, > as discussed in issue 46 [3]
Received on Sunday, 14 August 2011 17:00:14 UTC