Re: PAQ document update, target renamed as context

Hello Yogesh,

On Thursday 18 August 2011 02:41:39 Yogesh Simmhan wrote:
> Hi Graham,
> 
> Here are a bag of comments for Sec 1-3 of the latest revision.
> [...]
> == Sec 3.2 ==
> *) The "Appendix A. Notes on Using the Link Header with the HTML4 Format"
> suggests three possible ways of serializing extension relationship types
> (such as "provenance") into HTML4: an absolute URI, using the HEAD
> element's profile attribute prefix, or an RDFa namespace prefix. We seem
> to be using none of the three and the "provenance" relationship we use in
> the "rel" attribute is not a URI. Should we instead adopt an absolute URI
> for the relationship type (e.g.
> "http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/linktype/provenance") or reuse the RDFa's
> prov:hasProvenance that we introduce? Or is my reading of that appendix
> entry incorrect and does not apply to extension relation types that are
> registered with IETF? Ditto for the "anchor" relation.

I understand that appendix exactly as you do. Notice, this appendix is only 
about mapping HTML link elements to HTTP Link header fields; not the other way 
round. The important sentence is:

   """
   Individual applications of linking will therefore
   need to define how their extension links should
   be serialised into HTML4.
   """

This means, for use in HTTP Link header fields we have to register new link 
relation type(s) with IETF. For use in HTML link elements we must define how 
our link relation types "should be serialized into HTML4."  Such a definition 
should be part of the specification document with which we register our link 
relation types with IETF (I guess). So, the question is, which of the three 
options listed in the appendix do we use. My proposal would be to suggest the 
absolute URI as the preferred option but to permit all three.

> [...]
> == 3.4 ==
> *) "use the format-specific metadata to include a context-URI and/or
> provenance-URI"
> - and/or a provenance service URI
> - An additional option may be to embed the provenance information directly
> within the metadata. I know Yolanda brought this up earlier
> (http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1_Access_and_Query_Proposal#Issues_bey
> ond_s cope)

Yes and no. I understand embedded provenance information as a topic in itself 
and would still argue for a completely separate section about this topic.

Cheers,
Olaf


> Best,
> --Yogesh
> 
> | -----Original Message-----
> | From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org
> | [mailto:public-prov-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Graham Klyne
> | Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 7:21 AM
> | To: Paul Groth; Yogesh Simmhan; W3C provenance WG
> | Subject: PAQ document update, target renamed as context
> | 
> | 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 20:41:51 UTC