Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion

Myers, Jim wrote:
> 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.)

That's what I think they are, but I thought we were no longer using that 
terminology :)   I would be quite happy with, say, a "prov:viewOf" relation 
(which would be reflexive).

#g
--

> ________________________________________
> 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 07:21:42 UTC