- From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 19:27:18 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Tim, Things have changed from last time, because the same link relation is being used to access multiple query mechanisms (something you argued for :^) ). This is a design choice that is a large extent guided by REST principles. So now I shall argue more strongly for sticking with a full-REST pattern. The client should not have any prior knowledge of how the server URI space is used. That's a basic constraint of REST. Hence the client MUST learn about the URI from the service (in this case from the servioce description). That's what the template defines. #g -- On 07/02/2013 16:18, Timothy Lebo wrote: > On Feb 7, 2013, at 9:52 AM, "Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker" <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: > >> PROV-ISSUE-627 (URI-specified-or-REST): Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI > +1 > >> or always use template? > -1 > > (just as in the last time we had this thread) > > -Tim > > >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/627 >> >> Raised by: Graham Klyne >> On product: >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 19:27:56 UTC