- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:36:45 +0000
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Ivan, On 11/01/2013 12:08, Ivan Herman wrote: > - In 4.2, the text says "according to the following convention" and then example uses &target=.... This suggests that the &target=... is the usual convention that implementations should use. But this is not the case. However, 4.1.1. says that the URI template defines what is used, ie, I can have a service using a different convention, say, &resource=.... I believe this should be made clearer in the text. Well spotted! This somewhat reflects an earlier compromise that may now be less suitable (if indeed it ever was suitable). As such, I think it may be more than editorial and should be discussed. Originally, the compromise was to "fix" the URI form so it could be used directly in simple cases, and to provide the service description and URI template to allow a RESTful (HATEAOS)style of interaction. Now that the same link relation is used for both direct-access and query-access to provenance, I think the option of short-circuiting the HATEAOS interaction of retrieving the service document and using that to determine the URI to use for retrieving provenance is no longer sensible. As such, I propose to drop mention of the convention in the text and clarify that a client should use the URI template in from the service document. #g --
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2013 11:22:12 UTC