Difference between revisions of "ProvenanceAccessScenario"

From Provenance WG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
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.