RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion

But, having introduced the definition in this way, other uses are possible.  The
example I've started thinking about is that multiple <link> elements might
indicate different URIs denoting different levels of invariance. 

 - why aren't these just IVPof relationships? (I'm not arguing against encoding pil relationships as links, just against adding a 'target' concept that duplicates other relationships in the model.)

 Jim
________________________________________
From: Graham Klyne [graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk]
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 5:38 PM
To: Myers, Jim
Cc: Paul Groth; public-prov-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion

Myers, Jim wrote:
>> 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?
>
> So this is only used inside an HTML entity?

That was the compelling use-case, but once defined, other uses are not excluded.

> ... I.e. it is not a relationship between two entities, but is a means to embed
 > an identifier in an entity (for HTML)?

Interesting take.  Practically, in the HTML use case, I think I'd have to agree.

But I think it is still technically a relation in the same way that owl:sameAs
is a relation, even though its semantics tell us that the related RDF nodes
denote the same thing.  Like all HTML <link> elements, it defines a relation
between the resource of which the containing document is a representation and a
resource denoted by the given URI.  They may both be the same resource.

But, having introduced the definition in this way, other uses are possible.  The
example I've started thinking about is that multiple <link> elements might
indicate different URIs denoting different levels of invariance.  If the HTML is
a document in a source code management system, one such URI might denote a
specific version, and another might denote the "current" version, both of which
might reasonably be the referent for provenance assertions.

These other uses are not reasons that the propoal was introduced, but are just
consequences of not placing unnecessary constraints on the use of the existing
<link> feature as defined.

> An "ID card" mechanism that would allow me to keep my rdf:resource URL on my physical body so you could connect me to my online identity is the same type of thing?

Hmmm... I suppose you might think of it like that, but I'm wary of adopting that
view as it tends to arbitrarily exclude other possibilities that arguably should
flow from this use of the <link> element.

#g
--

Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2011 01:01:37 UTC