- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 15:34:21 +0000
- To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- CC: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On 24/11/2011 09:26, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > Now a good question is - if two such header appear, and they specify a > different anchor - ie. they talk about two different entities - is > there an implied prov:wasComplementOf() relation between those two > URIs? Are there two implied prov:viewOf relations (if this relation > existed) from the entity URIs to the "actual URI" where the document > was downloaded from? I don't think one should attempt to infer anything from the contents of a link header or element other than what is specified. It's just there to help *find* the provenance. What is thereby discovered should then be treated as probably containing provenance information. The anchor parameter is intended to help an application find the relevant provenance statements. The most one might infer infer is that the anchow is a contextualization of the original request URI; e.g. given C: GET <foo> S: 200 OK S: Link: <prov>; rel="provenance"; anchor="BAR" Then one *might* infer that BAR denotes an entity that contextualizes FOO. Personally, I'd prefer to let the provenance data express this (which is part of why I would like to see a contextualization relation instead of or as well as the complementOf relation). #g
Received on Friday, 25 November 2011 10:11:41 UTC