W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > April 2013

Re: [PROV-AQ] Editors' working copy updated

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:27:15 +0200
Message-ID: <EMEW3|5a6c504d2181a252a36b00a6aeafc49fp32DSX08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|515C2023.20304@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org

Hi Graham and Paul,

I did a quick review of the document.  Here are a few comments.


Key points:
----------

1. Term "constrained resource".
    I suggest renaming to "specialized resource", to better align
    with data model. Nowhere dm has a notion of "constrained".

2. Example 11. The role of the anchor is a post to a  pingback URI is 
unclear.

  What's the purpose of this anchor? Isn't it redundant?

  Is it mandatory for the anchor specified by the client,
  to be the same uri as the one original requested with a GET?
  If Yes, what is the expected behaviour of the service when the anchor 
differs.


   If the Service returned an anchor, with the has_provenance link,
   can/should the anchor provided by the client when posting to the
   pingback url be the same?

   Can the client mint new uris that it posts as anchors to the pingback 
uri?


3. I don't understand what the incentive is for a service to add a 
pingback link to http responses?

   Likewise, I don't understand what the incentive is for a client to 
post to a pingback uri?

   The document does not specify any expected behaviour in response to 
the post to a pingback uri.

   Therefore, it's misleading to say it helps with discovery. It only
   helps with discovery if the information posted in to a pingback uri,
   is shared in someway, but we don't know how it's shared.

Other remarks:
-------------

4. Make the spec a working group note, and update sotd.  No need of ref 
to editor's draft.


5. section 1.2: this specification should not make reference to 
validity. The mechanisms presented
here do not rely on validty.

6. section 1.4.  I agree that in a LOD-style, target-URI shoudl return 
what you specify.
    But, this is not the remit of this specification, I would drop this 
entry.
    Whereas, for the other URIs, it is the remit of this specification 
to say what
     provenance-uri, service-uri, pingback-uri should dereference to.

7. Section 3: Thanks for adding the note, just before 3.1. It would be
better to move it, just before 3.3. Otherwise, it is not possible to 
understand it.

8. Go through all examples, and "instantiate" the resource:

    http://example.com/resource -> http://example.com/resource123

9. In example 3, could you add a further example, where the server returns
    a Link has_provenance after redirect, but provides no answer.

    This said, is it the intent, that the target-uri is to be understood as
     http://example.com/resource123? Why not the redirect uri?


10. section 4.1.1  which which -> which

11. section 5, 2 paragraphs after example 10: i don't understand
   " the target-URI of the resource to which this pingback service 
belongs ..."



On 25/03/2013 17:23, Graham Klyne wrote:
> Re: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/prov-aq.html
>
> My apologies for not getting this done by last Thursday.  I believe 
> I've incorporated all the changes noted at the 2013-03-14 
> teleconference, and that the document is now ready for final WG review.
>
> See also:
>   http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-03-14
>   http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/5
>
> Per original timetable 
> (http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/WorkplanTillFinalPublication#prov-aq), 
> I'm hoping to have all final comments in by 20130404 (a week Thursday).
>
> #g
> -- 
>
>

-- 
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
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2013 12:29:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:35 UTC