- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 16:22:21 -0500
- To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Graham, a provenance-service-uri is certainly needed even in the RDF case, as the common practice recently is to host it in a SPARQL endpoint, which is the service one would want to access. Regards, Tim On Nov 19, 2011, at 3:27 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > > PROV-ISSUE-154 (RDF-provenance-service-uri): Include provenance-service-uri for RDF resources [Accessing and Querying Provenance] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/154 > > Raised by: Graham Klyne > On product: Accessing and Querying Provenance > > (Originally raised by Stephen Cresswell and Luc. E.g. see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Nov/0289.html) > >> If a resource is published by HTTP, or it is HTML or XHTML, then we can >> link to provenance by provenance-uri or provenance-service-uri. >> >> If a resource is some form of RDF, then we can give provenance-uri (but >> apparently not a provenance-service-uri?). > > You're the second person to raise this, and on reflection I'm finding it harder to justify the asymmetry. (Originally I had this idea that the RDF case was somehow different, or aiming at use-cases where the provenance service made less sense, but on reflection I find it hard to sustain that argument.) > > > > >
Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 21:22:50 UTC