Re: FW: provenance questionnaire, v2

Hi,

Does he mean *authorization* or *authentication*?

I'm not offhand sure how authorization would fit.  I can see that procvenance 
information should be able to work with authentication vocabularies, as a way of 
connecting provenance assertions to reasons that they might be considered 
trustworthy.  I'm not sure provenance should favour a single authentication 
vocabulary.

#g
--

On 06/09/2011 10:19, Deus, Helena wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Egon asks whether we plan to include authorization in the provenance model or whether there is an existing ontology that he can use.
>
> Regards,
> Helena
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Egon Willighagen [mailto:egon.willighagen@gmail.com]
> Sent: 06 September 2011 09:03
> To: Deus, Helena
> Cc: public-lod@w3.org; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
> Subject: Re: provenance questionnaire, v2
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Deus, Helena<helena.deus@deri.org>  wrote:
>> For those of you who haven't answered and would like to give your 2c
>> about how provenance should be dealt with on the semantic web, here's your chance!
>
> Authorization would probably not be considered provenance, but I was wondering if the WG has been talking about that, and if there is an existing ontology that would be suitable for that, compatible with the provenance ontology... it's clear that at least the depositors
> (provenance) have authorization, so compatibility at that level seems needed... Or?
>
> Egon
>
>
> --
> Dr E.L. Willighagen
> Postdoctoral Researcher
> Institutet för miljömedicin
> Karolinska Institutet (http://ki.se/imm)
> Homepage: http://egonw.github.com/
> LinkedIn: http://se.linkedin.com/in/egonw
> Blog: http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/
> PubList: http://www.citeulike.org/user/egonw/tag/papers
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 6 September 2011 11:43:22 UTC