- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 08:00:56 +0100
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On 25/08/2011 23:50, Luc Moreau wrote: > > Hi Graham, > > I think it's unfortunate. > > You seem to dismiss the case where there is no natural URI for provenance. I don't dismiss it. I just think its a less-preferred option for a web-based specification. As you note, the specification provides for the case where there is no URI, but I still think its appropriate to encourage developers to provide URIs where reasonably easy to do so. #g -- > In situations where provenance is dynamic, a query has typically to be issued, > to retrieve the provenance > related to a given context-uri. The implementer will have to extract the > context-uri from the provenance-uri. > > I appreciate your reference to the architecture document [1]. But to say: > - To benefit from and increase the value of the World Wide Web, agents should > provide URIs as identifiers for resources. > and follow it by: > - The term "resource" is used in a general sense for whatever might be > identified by a URI. > strikes me as somewhat circular. So, what kind of good practice are we trying to > follow? > > For the case identified in the issue I raised, I believe that provenance is > better referred to by a query (containinig > a context-uri). I don't doubt that this query can be encoded as a URI, but that > doesn't make it a natural URI. > > For this reason, I believe that we should not encourage one approach or > the other, and we should have a neutral presentation. > > Cheers, > Luc > > > > > On 25/08/11 13:47, Graham Klyne wrote: >> I think it's entirely appropriate that we should *encourage* developers to >> allocate and use URIs for accessing provenance. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#pr-use-uris >
Received on Friday, 26 August 2011 07:54:46 UTC