Re: PAQ document update, target renamed as context

On 21/08/2011 17:15, Olaf Hartig wrote:
>>> *) 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 would consider HTTP Link header fields more important than HTML link elements
> because they serve a more general use case. In other words, we shouldn't
> introduce an unnecessary limitation in the preciseness of the HTTP Link based
> mechanism that we propose, only because the (more specific) HTML link based
> mechanism isn't expressive enough.
>
>> 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.
>
> I don't see how this question (i.e. using a separate Link header field for
> anchor or anchor as a parameter) is _directly_ related to ISSUE 68 - most
> of the note that you added to ISSUE 68 is irrelevant for ISSUE 68 and should
> not be conflated with ISSUE 73 and the corresponding first Issue in Sec.3.1 of
> the PAQ document. ISSUE 68 is about the case where the anchor parameter is
> missing (and there is no Link of the additional type that we may or may not
> introduce). For that reason, I propose you remove the corresponding,
> irrelevant parts from the note that you added to ISSUE 68.

There's also http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/78

Mainly, I acknowledge an issue here, but I fear we could be focusing on the 
wrong thing, and want to try and articulate a wider view within which this may 
be considered.

#g
--

Received on Thursday, 25 August 2011 13:52:04 UTC