- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:13:18 +0000
- To: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Re: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/425 I sent a message to LDP: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp/2012Nov/0036.html Responses so far: [[ not yet, but it certainly is a problem we will have to address and solve eventually. whether that means adopting a standard/convention that is provided to us, or using our own ad-hoc solution, is not something that is clear yet, as there isn't one obvious and stable standard out there that we can simply adopt. ]] -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp/2012Nov/0037.html [[ Translation: you don't know if it would be modeled using RDF and expressed using markup syntaxes associated with the aforementioned model. A valid question. One that needs to be answered sooner rather than later. ]] -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp/2012Nov/0038.html I propose that the current text is probably as good as we can achieve for the moment. I've added note to the PROV-AQ document: [[ We expect the presentation of service descriptions to be considered by the W3C Linked data Platform group (www.w3.org/2012/ldp/); at the time of writing, there is no consensus (cf. message at lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp/2012Nov/0036.html and responses). As and when such consensus emerges, we recommend that provenance service implementers consider adopting it, or at least consider making their implementations compatible with it. ]] I'm changing the issue status to PENDING REVIEW. #g --
Received on Monday, 26 November 2012 14:19:50 UTC