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

Re: PROV-AQ response to Ivan's review

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:41:13 +0100
Cc: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5D8B61DD-8DE8-4426-B8F7-32D54D95EAA0@w3.org>
To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Thanks Graham!

For the records, I am satisfied with the responses.

Thanks again

Ivan

On Mar 11, 2013, at 10:59 , Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote:

> 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 itself.
> 
>>>> 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
> 
> #g
> --


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Monday, 11 March 2013 12:41:36 UTC

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