ISSUE-624: Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template?
URI-specified-or-REST
Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template?
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- Accessing and Querying Provenance
- Raised by:
- Graham Klyne
- Opened on:
- 2013-02-07
- Description:
- In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2013Jan/0038.html, Ivan notes: "- In 4.2, the text says "according to the following convention" and then example uses &target=.... This suggests that the &target=... is the usual convention that implementations should use. But this is not the case. However, 4.1.1. says that the URI template defines what is used, ie, I can have a service using a different convention, say, &resource=.... I believe this should be made clearer in the text."
- Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- PROV-AQ issues pending review (from graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2013-03-11)
- Re: prov-aq review for release as working draft (ISSUE-613) (from ivan@w3.org on 2013-02-08)
- Re: prov-aq review for release as working draft (ISSUE-613) (from GK@ninebynine.org on 2013-02-07)
- PROV-ISSUE-624 (URI-specified-or-REST): Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template? (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2013-02-07)
Related notes:
I agree this is a muddle. Originally, what seems a long time ago now, there was a compromise between a pure REST approach (which would require use of the template in all cases), and the compromise that would recommend a particular format for common use so that clients could just retrieve a URI and be done.
Since then, the scope of the provenance query service description has expanded somewhat, and is more closely adopting REST principles. As such, I would propose to demote the "convention" to a mere example, and make it clearer (if it isn't already) that the client is required to retrieve the service description and follow its nose from there (including the possibility of content negotiation for different service documents). This should make PROV-AQ operations more robust and adaptable in the face of evolving requirements and technology.
See also: https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/425Graham Klyne, 7 Feb 2013, 13:59:25
See also: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2013Jan/0068.html
Graham Klyne, 7 Feb 2013, 14:49:19The currenbt version of the spec refglects the position noted in the previous comment.
Graham Klyne, 7 Mar 2013, 15:14:42Display change log
