Re: prov-aq review for release as working draft (ISSUE-613)

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