W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > December 2015

DUV review

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 13:51:04 +0000
To: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <566AD4C8.5000105@w3.org>
Eric, Sumit, Berna,

I'm just looking through the DUV again and have some questions/comments.

First up - I like the new diagram, that looks much clearer and it's 
therefore easier to understand.

I think you can remove the rev namespace from the table - I don't see 
that's use anywhere now?

The note at the beginning of the examples (The vocabularies are out of 
date, and need to be improved. This needs to be an action item once the 
vocabulary specification has been completed.) isn't clear to me which 
vocabs you want to update. Maybe the note can be clarified a little?

Going through the list of classes and properties I see several that on 
first appearance look like duplicates, or near duplicates, of existing 
well known examples. If there is good reason to define new classes and 
properties rather than reusing those others, OK, but I think the text 
should include that reasoning. If not, then maybe the existing term can 
be used?

These are the ones that stand out to me:

duv:author - why can't you just use dcterms:creator? You have this 
defined as a sub property of dc:creator (not dcterms I notice, and dc is 
missing from the table of namespaces). If there's a reason, OK, but 
dcterms:creator is pretty universal.

duv:hasPublisher - again, why not dcterms:publisher?

I can't find duv:hasProducer in the diagram but I see that it has a 
range of prov:Agent and skos:Concept. That seems to be confusing two 
things there. The producer will be an Agent that will have either a 
classification or a role of some kind. That seems similar to 
org:classification which takes a skos:Concept as its range.

See just above

Googling around this topic I also came across
which seems very relevant, in particular a property fundedBy.

duv:edition - looks like pav:version to me??

duv:Publication - not foaf:Document??

If you and the WG are ready to publish this as the next WD, I'm happy 
with that but I think one or more issues should be raised to help tie 
down where DUV terms differ from existing ones.




Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead

+44 (0)7887 767755
Received on Friday, 11 December 2015 13:51:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 11 December 2015 13:51:17 UTC