W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > December 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-154 (RDF-provenance-service-uri): Include provenance-service-uri for RDF resources [Accessing and Querying Provenance]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 16:22:21 -0500
Message-Id: <B84816DE-09BC-4A77-85B4-005696F7AE9B@rpi.edu>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:04 UTC