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

PROV-AQ response to Ivan's review

From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:59:55 +0000
Message-ID: <513DAB1B.1020606@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Ivan (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2013Jan/0038.html):

>>> My responses are prefixed like this.

- 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.

>>> Section 4 has been revised as part of a wider discussion, and now always
uses a template from the service document.

- In 4.2 the text says

"A provenance query service should be capable of returning RDF using the 
vocabulary defined by [PROV-O], in any standard RDF serialization (e.g. 
RDF/XML), or any other standard serialization of the Provenance Model 
specification [PROV-DM]"

In my reading this suggests that a query service should provide _all_ the 
standard rdf serialisations. Is this what we say? Ie, does the service have to 
provide rdf/xml, turtle, json-ld, and rdfa? Or should it provide at least one of 
these? (In which case how does it say which one it can support?)

>>> Agree, needs clarifying that we're not requiring support for *all* RDF
formats.  We discussed this as http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/428, but 
I don't see a definitive outcome recorded.  In the absence of a clear consensus 
on a specified format, I thought we were taking a fairly loose approach for now, 
with a view to seeing what applications choose to support.  If I'd been asked 
about this a year ago, I'd have said that RDF/XML MUST be supported, others are 
optional.  For a long time, RDF/XML was *the* standard syntax for RDF.  But the 
mood seems to be shifting towards Turtle as the most popular format.

>>> Section 4.1 now says:
Dereferencing a service-URI yields a service description. The service 
description presented here may be supplied as RDF (in any of its common 
serializations as determined by HTTP content negotiation), and it may contain 
descriptions of one or more available query mechanisms. Each query mechanism is 
associated with an RDF type, as explained below. (The presentation here of RDF 
service descriptions does not preclude use of non-RDF formats selectable by HTTP 
content negotiation.)

>>> I believe this to be consistent with REST patterns that use content
negotiation to select different service descriptions, per discussion with 
members of the LDP working group.

Mini-mini issues:

- In the status section, bulleted list, the 'PROV-AQ' should not reference to 

>>> agreed.  I believe this is being handled by Paul in the staging process.

- A full stop is missing after the item on Target-URI

>>> Fixed.

Finally, we should not forget expanding the /ns/prov files (currently under the 
'control' of Tim) to include the terms in this document. This should be done 
when the document is published.

>>> agreed.  http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/597

Received on Monday, 11 March 2013 10:01:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:32 UTC