- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:16:28 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Graham, But if you want to ask a third party (assuming you have found it by (a) or (c)), how will you do it? Do you need a separate protocol? Regards, Luc On 20/06/11 19:01, Graham Klyne wrote: > Luc Moreau wrote: >> OK, I can use HTTP HEAD in order to obtain provenance-URI for some >> resource. >> This provenance-URI will be returned by the same service as the one >> providing the resource. > > Correct. > >> How can I obtain an alternative provenance from another service? I >> don't understand I >> would get an alternative provenance-URI? > > I don't have a single immediate answer. I can imagine several > possible mechanisms (*), but I have no way to judge which is most > appropriate. > > And in any case, it is not obvious to me that we need a *standard* for > such a mechanism (not saying we don't, just not sure that we do). > > Therefore, in the spirit of earlier posts I would suggest this is a > case for which we do not define a solution in a first draft, and then > see what > > #g > -- > > (*) > > Some possible mechanisms: > > (a) ask known third party service providers > (b) the content provider could specify alernative provennce sources in > the content (I previously said something about not using HTTP Link: > and HTML <Link> together: this might be a reason to not discourage > that). > (c) Google (or semantic web equivalent) for the resource URI plus > "provenance" or similar > (d) ask the resource provider (server) for alternative provenance sources > > Without knowing more about a specific scenario, and in particular who > in that scenario is expected to know what, it's not possible to > recommend one of these over the others. But my hunch is that (a) and > (c) will prove most useful. > > >
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 22:17:07 UTC