- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:11:58 +0000
- To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- CC: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Luc,
I find that don't really know what you are asking for here.
I propose that either:
(a) you make a more concrete proposal that we can consider, or
(b) I close the issue "wontfix"
In judging any new proposal, I would expect to apply the "razor" we agreed in
the F2F, in that if the proposal is not readily consensual then we should err on
the side of under-specification rather than over-specification. Generally, I
think we should now be looking to remove material from the documents rather than
add it.
#g
--
On 07/02/2012 14:53, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> Then all bets are off beyond what you already know..
>
> Or do you mean paq could be a general URI resolver?
> On Feb 7, 2012 11:40 AM, "Luc Moreau"<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Hi Stian,
>> Sure, but what happens when accounts are identified by UUIDs ...
>> Luc
>>
>> On 02/07/2012 10:08 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:35, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.**uk<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I already flagged the need of being able to retrieve the provenance of an
>>>> entity in a given account.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> If you know the account/"provenance resource" URI, just fetch it.
>>>
>>> If not, then the PAQ will tell you about the provenance resources
>>> ("accounts") that it knows about. You can fetch them individually and
>>> choose yourself how you would like to separate or merge them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Professor Luc Moreau
>> Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487
>> University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865
>> Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
>> United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~**lavm<http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm>
>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 08:38:13 UTC