Re: PAQ document update, target renamed as context

Olaf,

Many thanks for your feedback.  It is most valuable.  Most of your comments have 
been actioned in the draft version at 
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cf79b13c1217/paq/provenance-access.html

There are a couple of issues you raise here which I am treating as unresolved:

(1) the subject of HTTP/HTML links specifying provenance-URI, context-URI.  This 
was already raised as ISSUE 68, so I've added a note there.

(2) the section on adding links to RDF original data remains incomplete.  I 
briefly discuss it below, but I have not yet updated the document other than to 
add some comments.

Olaf Hartig wrote:
> 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".

Good catch.  I sometimes like to use the term "web resource" to underscore the 
intent.  I've changed this, and also the definition of "resource" in section 1.1.

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

Thanks!

> --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 secti n something along the lines of: Oh b.t.w. POWDER proposed 
> something similar.

Agreed.  I've moved the reference to POWDER to the main section body and made it 
less prominent.

> 
> *) 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. 

That is true.  But that [precision cannot be achieved using the alternative 
mechanisms. especially HTML <link> element, so I'm actually leaning the other 
way.  I've updated ISSUE 68 (http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/68) to 
mention this problem.  I'm treating it as currently unresolved.

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

Thanks.

I'm getting a sense that there may be some consensus here:)

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

Agreed.  Reference removed as noted above.

> *) 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.

A cut-and-paste passenger.

I agree.  I noticed this before and intended to remove it.  This time, I shall.

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

Yes. Done.

> *) 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.

Agreed - I've removed that issue from the document at the same time as 
de-emphasizing the relationship to POWDER.

> --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.

You use the URI of the containing RDF.  For RDF documents, this is sometimes 
written as an empty URI-reference; e.g.

   <rdf:Description rdf:about="">
     <prov:hasProvenance rdf:resource="(provenance_URI)"/>
   </rdf:Description>

(If publishing the RDF in a named graph, then use the URI of the graph.)

I agree this section needs fleshing out still.  I guess I was waiting for the 
dust to settle on the provenance model and vocabulary.

> --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.

Thanks!  Fixed.

#g
--

Received on Friday, 19 August 2011 17:26:00 UTC