Re: PROV-ISSUE-78 (contexts-and-provenance-uris): multiple contexts and provenance-uris [Accessing and Querying Provenance]

Paul, Luc,

Agreed.

I'm happy to revisit this, but if we are to enter the fray of (e.g.) adding new 
attributes for HTML elements, or creating new metadata structures I think we 
need a really compelling use-case.

Before we go there, I think we need to stand back and understand how the various 
moving parts we already have can work together.  I am intending to draft 
something about this, but I'm waiting for the PIDM entity/view debate to settle.

#g
--

On 26/08/2011 05:05, Paul Groth wrote:
> Hi Luc,
>
> I think we want to express this pairing of context-uri and
> provenance-uri as done in the http header case.
>
> However, the question is how we do this in the html case. Obviously, we
> could create a set of metadata to allow this. However, it's not
> supported by the link html tag.
>
> I guess are general approach was to have something that reused already
> well known bits of html metadata (e.g. the link tag), which lead to not
> making the binding between the a context-uri and a provenance-uri. Also,
> this approach meant we had a nice parallel to the http header case.
>
> We can look again at this but I hope that it explains the trade-off.
>
> cheers
> Paul
>
>
> Paul Groth wrote:
>> Hi Luc,
>>
>> I think we want to express this pairing of context-uri and
>> provenance-uri as done in the http header case.
>>
>> However, the question is how we do this in the html case. Obviously, we
>> could create a set of metadata to allow this. However, it's not
>> supported by the link html tag.
>>
>> I guess are general approach was to have something that reused already
>> well known bits of html metadata (e.g. the link tag), which lead to not
>> making the binding between the a context-uri and a provenance-uri. Also,
>> this approach meant we had a nice parallel to the http header case.
>>
>> We can look again at this but I hope that it explains the trade-off.
>>
>> cheers
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> Luc Moreau wrote:
>>> Hi Graham,
>>>
>>> Thanks, you have the same response as Olaf.
>>> I followed with this comment:
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Aug/0306.html
>>>
>>> Again, it's about allowing applications to make intelligent choices. We
>>> don't
>>> offer them this opportunity, because nothing distinguishes the various
>>> options.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Luc
>>>
>>> On 25/08/11 15:01, Graham Klyne wrote:
>>>> On 22/08/2011 23:50, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-78 (contexts-and-provenance-uris): multiple contexts and
>>>>> provenance-uris [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/78
>>>>>
>>>>> Raised by: Luc Moreau
>>>>> On product: Accessing and Querying Provenance
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We seem to allow for multiple context-uris and provenance-uris to be
>>>>> provided.
>>>>> I am fine with this.
>>>>>
>>>>> But don't we want to be able to say, for instance:
>>>>>
>>>>> context-uri1 provenance-uri1
>>>>> context-uri1 provenance-uri2
>>>>> context-uri2 provenance-uri3
>>>>> context-uri2 provenance-uri4
>>>>>
>>>>> Do we want to be able to express this? Can this be expressed?
>>>> It can be expressed usingthe HTTP Link: header, but not using the HTML
>>>> <link> element.
>>>>
>>>> I discussed this with Paul, and we agreed between ourselves that it's
>>>> not a problem. I'm planning to add some more introductory text that I
>>>> hope will provide some (ahem) context for this. I propose we discuss
>>>> further when I've done that.
>>>>
>>>> #g
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>
>

Received on Friday, 26 August 2011 07:55:02 UTC