ISSUE-52: why handling provider and third parties differently?

provenance-source-equal-treatment

why handling provider and third parties differently?

State:
CLOSED
Product:
Accessing and Querying Provenance
Raised by:
Luc Moreau
Opened on:
2011-07-28
Description:
Let us assume I have the identifier for the document that I currently hold.
Why do we have two different methods to obtain its provenance-uri?

HTTP HEAD if we want to obtain provenance-uri(s) from the document provider.

SPARQL query if we want to obtain provenance-uri(s) from a third party.

Ultimately, it's the same operation (give me provenance-uri(s) for the current document), why two different methods? My view is that we should have a SINGLE operation, whoever we are dealing with, document provider or third party.
Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
  1. Closing issues on PROV-AQ (from graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2011-12-01)
  2. Re: PROV-WG Reminder: Review PAQ before FPWD vote (from GK@ninebynine.org on 2011-11-16)
  3. Re: PROV-WG Reminder: Review PAQ before FPWD vote (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2011-11-15)
  4. Re: PROV-WG Reminder: Review PAQ before FPWD vote (from p.t.groth@vu.nl on 2011-11-15)
  5. Re: PROV-WG Reminder: Review PAQ before FPWD vote (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2011-11-15)
  6. Reviewing outstanding issues on PAQ document. (from GK@ninebynine.org on 2011-09-15)
  7. Re: PROV-ISSUE-52 (provenance-source-equal-treatment): why handling provider and third parties differently? [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2011-07-29)
  8. Re: PROV-ISSUE-52 (provenance-source-equal-treatment): why handling provider and third parties differently? [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (from GK@ninebynine.org on 2011-07-28)
  9. PROV-ISSUE-52 (provenance-source-equal-treatment): why handling provider and third parties differently? [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2011-07-28)

Related notes:

I propose to clarify the text so that it's clearer that the mechanisms currently suggested for third-party providers MAY also be used by the original provider.

See also ISSUE 53.

Graham Klyne, 4 Aug 2011, 11:02:06

I believe that revision ajnd reorganization of the text addresses the issue raised here. The different mechanisms are characterized more by their functional characteristics than by the parties who may deploy them - third party providers are now offered merely as a motivating example for independent access services.

Graham Klyne, 5 Aug 2011, 11:39:40

Display change log ATOM feed


Chair, Staff Contact
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: 52.html,v 1.1 2013-06-20 07:37:50 vivien Exp $