ISSUE-428: should we recommend RDF for provenance; define other mimetypes for other serializations?
mimetypes
should we recommend RDF for provenance; define other mimetypes for other serializations?
- State:
- PENDING REVIEW
- Product:
- Accessing and Querying Provenance
- Raised by:
- Paul Groth
- Opened on:
- 2012-06-20
- Description:
- We mention the rdf mimetype should we mention the other mimetypes in section 4.1?
- Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Re: [PROV-AQ] ISSUE-428: should we recommend RDF for provenance; define other mimetypes for other serializations? (from p.t.groth@vu.nl on 2013-03-13)
- prov-wg: core paq issues - please think/discuss before telcon (from p.t.groth@vu.nl on 2013-03-13)
- Re: [PROV-AQ] ISSUE-428: should we recommend RDF for provenance; define other mimetypes for other serializations? (from mccusj@rpi.edu on 2013-03-11)
- Re: PROV-AQ responses to Stian's review (part 2) (from soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk on 2013-03-11)
- Re: [PROV-AQ] ISSUE-428: should we recommend RDF for provenance; define other mimetypes for other serializations? (from p.t.groth@vu.nl on 2013-03-11)
- Re: PROV-AQ response to Ivan's review (from ivan@w3.org on 2013-03-11)
- [PROV-AQ] ISSUE-428: should we recommend RDF for provenance; define other mimetypes for other serializations? (from Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2013-03-11)
- PROV-AQ responses to Luc's review (from graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2013-03-11)
- PROV-AQ response to Ivan's review (from graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2013-03-11)
- PROV-AQ responses to Stian's review (part 2) (from graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2013-03-11)
- PROV-AQ, ISSUE 601 and general status update (from GK@ninebynine.org on 2012-11-26)
- PROV-AQ - format of returned provenance information (from GK@ninebynine.org on 2012-11-20)
- PROV-ISSUE-428 (mimetypes): should we define other mimetypes for other serializations? [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-06-20)
Related notes:
I don't think there's any value here. See also my response to http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/425
Graham Klyne, 6 Nov 2012, 16:33:11Proposing to close with no further action other than per issue 425
Graham Klyne, 6 Nov 2012, 16:34:42Open up for group discussion, with the following options:
(a) no required format, possibly with light recommendation for RDF
(b) require serves to support all standard formats through content negotiation
(c) require clients to accept all formats
(d) require server to support one preferred format, others optional through conneg
Message to PROV WG: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Nov/0188.html
Graham Klyne, 20 Nov 2012, 12:41:55The current stance is this:
"Most mechanisms described in this note are independent of the provenance format used, and may be used to access provenance in any available format. For interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV-O represented in a standardized RDF format is recommended. Where alternative formats are available, selection may be made by content negotiation." (from the introduction)
For the most part, the rest of the document does not talk about provenance formats. References to provenance formats have been removed from section 4.1 and most other places. Section 4.1 does mention use of RDF for service descriptions, but that's a different matter covered by another issue (http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/622).
So there's a preference here for publication as RDF, but the mechanisms defined here should work with any format. I commend this position to the working group.
Propose to close without further change.
The text referring to RDF has been changed to read "Most mechanisms described in this note are independent of the provenance format used, and may be used to access provenance in any available format. For interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV represented in any of its specified formats is recommended. Where alternative formats are available, selection may be made by HTTP content negotiation [HTTP11]. "
and similar text in section 4.2
Display change log
