ProvenanceAccessScenario
From Provenance WG Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
* Should we consider getting the provenance of the whole document or part of it? | * Should we consider getting the provenance of the whole document or part of it? | ||
* It is out of scope to reconcile potentially conflicting provenance | * It is out of scope to reconcile potentially conflicting provenance | ||
| - | * should we expand the document type to include non-html documents? | + | * should we expand the document type to include non-html documents? - propose changing first sentence to *A user obtains a document. |
[[Category:Scenario]] | [[Category:Scenario]] | ||
Revision as of 18:20, 7 July 2011
- A user obtains an html document.
- The client software (browser, email client etc.) offers an "Oh yeah?" feature, by which provenance of the document is accessed.
- Provenance is accessed from the provider site of the document and from a third-party site.
- What does the client do on the button being clicked, what information does it need in order to perform the retrieval, and where does that information come from?
- We should consider that the html document was downloaded from the web or received by email.
Issues to consider:
- Should consider access control over provenance
- Should we say something on the format of provenance
- Could we rephrased without reference to provenance, say it refers to trust
- Should we consider getting the provenance of the whole document or part of it?
- It is out of scope to reconcile potentially conflicting provenance
- should we expand the document type to include non-html documents? - propose changing first sentence to *A user obtains a document.
