Difference between revisions of "ProvenanceAccessScenario"

From Provenance WG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
*A user obtains a document.  The initial scenario will focus on an html document.
+
*A user obtains a document.  The initial scenario will focus on an html document without inclusions such as javascript or images.
 
*The client software (browser, email client etc.) offers an "Oh yeah?" feature, by which provenance of the document is accessed.
 
*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.  
 
*Provenance is accessed from the provider site of the document and from a third-party site.  

Revision as of 18:31, 7 July 2011

  • A user obtains a document. The initial scenario will focus on an html document without inclusions such as javascript or images.
  • 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.
  • We should consider that access control over provenance is required
  • We should consider that multiple formats for provenance are required by the "Oh yeah?" feature


Issues to consider:

  • 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.