Re: PROV-ISSUE-233 (paq-dm-and-accounts?): If not in DM, should there be some form of account support in the paq? [Accessing and Querying Provenance]

Luc,

On 08/02/2012 10:01, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
> Hi graham
>
> In short, to be able to retrieve prov from a service with the following parameters:
>
>   Http;//service/endpoint&entity=...&account=...

Hmmm, I think this is mostly covered by 
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/prov-aq.html#retrieve-provenance-information-for-a-resource 
  (section 4.1.2).

> And have a mechanism to pass account ids.

This is the bit that I have trouble with.  What is this "account id"?  I think 
it's really inappropriate to introduce it as a concept in PAQ because it's been 
dropped from DM.

There is nothing in the specification that *prevents* you doing any of this, but 
if the notion of account isn't part of the provenance model it is bound to be a 
"private use" convention (which may become widely used and a later candidate for 
standardization).

I think an appropriate way forward here would be to prepare a separate document 
that covers the concept of accounts, account IDs and service extensions to 
access provenance keyed by account.  This could be a candidate for a WG NOTE 
(which we were told at F2F the WG may choose to issue without reference to the 
charter).

Which leaves me still inclined to close this "wontfix".

#g
--

>
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton
> Southampton SO17 1BJ
> United Kingdom
>
>
> On 8 Feb 2012, at 08:35, "Graham Klyne"<Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>  wrote:
>
>> 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 10:37:24 UTC