Re: PROV-ISSUE-36: Section 3.2: Accessing the provenance of HTML documents [Accessing and Querying Provenance]

I've added a note to the text in 
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/provenance-access.html#resource-presented-as-html

[[
An alternative option would be to use an HTML <meta> element to present 
provenance links. The <Link> is preferred as it reflects more closely the 
intended goal, and has been defined with somewhat consistent applicability 
across HTTP, HTML and potentially RDF data. A specification to use <meta> for 
this would miss this opportunity to build on the existing specification and 
registry.
]]

#g
--

Khalid Belhajjame wrote:
> HI Graham,
> 
> On 24/07/2011 08:14, Graham Klyne wrote:
>> That you raise this means it clearly needs clarifying in the text.  In 
>> the sense I intended, <meta> could similarly be used _only_ for 
>> documents presented as HTML.
>>
>> I think a new <meta> tag would require more new specification than 
>> builing on the <link> work.  Technically, I don't think there's much 
>> to choose, but I feel that hooking into the link type registry will 
>> seem more clear-cut to potential users, hence have better take-up.  
>> It's a judgement call.
> 
> I think I agree with you. Although it is the possibility of using the 
> <meta> tag, using "link" provides tghe advantage of being somewhat 
> uniform across different representations, viz. "HTML" and  "HTTP". 
> Probably we should mention in the text, as you suggested, that although 
> the <meta> tag could be used, it will require more new specification 
> compared with the use of <link>.
> 
> Thanks, khalid
> 
>>
>> #g
>> -- 
>>
>> Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>> PROV-ISSUE-36: Section 3.2: Accessing the provenance of HTML 
>>> documents [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/36
>>>
>>> Raised by: Khalid Belhajjame
>>> On product: Accessing and Querying Provenance
>>>
>>> The Powder <link> element is used to specify the provenance of 
>>> documents presented as HTML. I am wondering why choosing this option 
>>> instead of simply using the <meta> tag which is supported by plain 
>>> HTML. Is there any reason behind this choice? Was it simply because 
>>> there was a desire to be consistent and use POWDER for accessing both 
>>> HTTP and HTML resources?
>>> Khalid
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Thursday, 28 July 2011 12:59:24 UTC