TAG discussion may be relevant to PROV-CONSTRAINTS


This is the old "HTTP-range14" permathread.  But it does touch on what a URI is 
considered to denote, and how this can be determined.  There's some doscussion 
of "context of use" which may relate to my last message. There's also some 
discussion about semantics that work for archives vs stuff on the web (noting 
that provenance is framed to have a certain archival quality about it).

If TAG do come to a consensus about all this (which the rest of the web 
community seem amenable to follow), I think we need to be sure that the 
PROV-CONSTRAINTS proposal is consistent with that.


Later in the same minutes, there;'s a discussion of legal issues and deep 
linking (e.g. can publishing a hyperlink constitute copyright infringement?). 
this discussion goes on to talk about responsibility for content and makes 
general reference to work of the provenance group (i.e. us!).

  Larry: does the work on provenance help here?
    ... were you to record provenance, could you push
    responsibility back to originator

    jar: out of scope

    <noah> Noah notes we're run off the end of the parts he's read

    Larry: why is it out of scope?

    jar/robin: because the technology is not there

    Larry: but to what extent *could* this be useful? Ask the
    provenance group?


Received on Monday, 9 April 2012 09:46:38 UTC