W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > June 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-432 (post-or-get): Is http get the correct form for the provenance service [Accessing and Querying Provenance]

From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:53:10 +0100
Message-ID: <4FE5F476.5020607@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
CC: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
I'm going to try responding to this again, using a real computer.

Summary: I think it's a non-issue.

Provenance GET operations just return values, they don't have (visible) side 
effects or any other consequences that I'm aware of that would make them unsafe 
(per http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#safe-interaction)

I see no reason why POST operations should be supported (*).  GET operations are 
preferred when appropriate, as the results can be cached.  It's quite OK for a 
REST API to NOT use the full range of available HTTP methods.

#g
--

(*) for the functionality that we define in PROV-AQ.  I think there MAY be a 
role for POST operations in relation to provenance ping-backs, but that's a 
feature not covered by PROV-AQ.


On 23/06/2012 16:50, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-432 (post-or-get): Is http get the correct form for the provenance service [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/432
>
> Raised by: Paul Groth
> On product: Accessing and Querying Provenance
>
> According to REST principles one should not create side-effects when using GET. The question is does this apply to provenance-service.
>
> Also, should POST be supported as well as GET in the provenance service.
>
>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 23 June 2012 16:54:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:16 UTC