Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion

Myers, Jim wrote:
>> I think other reasons discussed for introducing a target/context URI are more
>> compelling.  Specifically, the requirement to be able to process provenance
>> information for HTML on a memory stick - i.e. to indicate what is the URI of the
>> Entity in the absence of other information.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand this - 
> Is this different than the idea that I create an rdf:resource with a URI to represent a physical object? Is the off-line nature really part of the target URI argument or is it just a third-party argument - there's a resource somewhere but we cannot add provenance to it directly (we don't own the server, the URL is not live) so we need a proxy - a target URI - that is online and under our control so we can serve provenance info for it? 

The history as I see it is this:  I originally drafted PAQ on the assumption 
that a resource about which provenance could be expressed had an a priori known 
URI, which I expect to be the normal case on the web.

In Issue 46 (http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/46), Luc raised the point 
that the scenario we had agreed to address included a case where the recipient 
of a resource representation had no way to know its URI for the purposes of 
provenance discovery.  After short discussion, my response to this issue was to 
introduce a new link relation type (currently called "target") to allow this URI 
to be encoded in the header of an HTML document.

Does this help?

(We have not yet attempted to specify a generic mechanism that works for *any* 
type of resource representation for which provenance might be expressed - not 
because it's not possible, but because it's not clear that the effort and 
complexity of describing a single such mechanism is justified.)

#g
--

Received on Monday, 15 August 2011 15:54:36 UTC