Re: PAQ document update, target renamed as context

Hello,

         (Sorry, I wasn't able to make the call today.)

I took another look at (the latest version of) the PAQ document today. Here 
are my comments:

--Section 1.2--
*) The term "web resource" is not described in AWWW. AWWW Sec.2.2 just 
introduces the term "resource".

*) The use of "context" and "context-URI" fit quite well here; much better than 
"target".

--Section 3.1--
*) Why do we begin with the POWDER mechanism here? I would propose to remove 
the reference to POWDER from the begin of this section and, instead, mention 
later in the section something along the lines of: Oh b.t.w. POWDER proposed 
something similar.

*) Regarding the first Issue (i.e. a separate Link header field for anchor or 
anchor as a parameter): We should pick the second because it is precise about 
which provenance-URI is associated with which context-URI. 

*) Regarding the second Issue: I wouldn't consider the linked provenance 
information authoritative.

--Section 3.2--
*) Same issue with POWDER as raised for Sec.3.1.

*) Why do we need the  <meta name="wdr.issuedby"...  element in the example? 
The text doesn't say anything about it; so, it may only cause confusion and, 
thus, should be removed.

--Section 3.2.1--
*) Same issue with the  <meta name="wdr.issuedby"...  element in the example 
as raised for Sec.3.2.

*) Regarding the Issue (i.e. what about the relationship between linked 
provenance information and provenance information provided via meta elements 
in the document itself): So far, we are not concerned with practices to 
directly embed provenance information into the documents (or, in more general 
terms, into representations of Web resources). As long as we don't do that (we 
should!), I don't see a need to discuss this issue in the document.

--Section 3.3--
*) For prov:hasProvenance triples I still don't understand how the subject is 
associated to the set of RDF triples that contains the corresponding 
prov:hasProvenance triple. To put it differently, what URI do I as a publisher 
use in the subject position of a prov:hasProvenance triple if I want to say 
that the object resource represents provenance information about that very set 
of triples which currently represent the resource in question.

--Section 4--
At first glance the proposed HTTP interface for discovery looks good. I will 
give it a second read.

However, a minor syntactic issue in the example in Sec.4.2.1.2: the last 
semicolon has to be removed.



Greetings,
Olaf


On Wednesday 17 August 2011 16:21:21 Graham Klyne wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Following discussions with Paul, and also with reference to ISSUE 74
> (http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/74), I've made an editorial pass
> through the document to change references to "target" to "context", in line
> with RFC5988 usage.  I've renamed the corresponding link relation type to
> be "anchor", consistent with usage in defining the HTTP Link: header.
> 
> I have also added a new sub-section in the introduction which discusses the
> relationship between resources, contexts and provenance, which I believe
> captures the essence of discussions particularly between myself and Paul.
> There's probably some remaining work to align or connect this with
> terminology in the Model document, but my immediate focus has been to try
> to capture the essential details as they affect provenance access.
> 
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/provenance-access.html#provenan
> ce--context-and-resources
> 
> #g
> --

Received on Thursday, 18 August 2011 19:52:12 UTC