- From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:18:41 +0100
- To: Iker Huerga <ihuerga@linkatu.net>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Iker Huerga wrote: >> 2.) Processing step 4 says: "analyst (alice) downloads a turtle >> serialization (lcp1) ..." While I was trying to describe that fact, it >> felt strange that Alice was the agent/actor that accessed the server. >> Hence, I would say that Alice cannot download lcp1 directly, she must use >> an HTTP client software for that. Same for Bob in processing step 8. >> Should we add that to the example? > > I agree with Olaf, I think that the object of the prv:performedBy > propertys should be an HTTP agent, for instance an sparql endpoint in a > query scenario. I don't think that a requirements-elicitation scenario should make specific reference to technology used. (If it's a big dataset, bittorrent might be preferred; and while HTTP is central to the Web, HTTP isn't its only protocol.) It would be reasonable to frame this as "analyst (alice) uses a software tool to download ...", though I'm not convinced this is an important distinction to make at this stage. #g --
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2011 13:22:12 UTC