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

Re: DUV Comments

From: Joćo Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:46:17 -0200
To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>, Laufer <laufer@globo.com>
CC: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>, "Purohit, Sumit" <Sumit.Purohit@pnnl.gov>, DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D290A999.B377D%jpalmeida@ieee.org>
Š ContinuingŠ :

10) If cito defines a cito:CitationAct as "a performative act of making a
citation from a citing entity to a cited entity, typically instantiated by
the inclusion of a bibliographic reference or a data reference in the
reference list of the citing entity.² than the property duv:hasPublisher
is poorly namedŠ publisher of an act? (probably the same applies to
duv:hasAuthor).

11) I think duv:Publication should be replaced by
dct:BibliographicResource [1].
 

Regards,
Joćo Paulo

[1]  
http://dublincore.org/documents/2012/06/14/dcmi-terms/?v=terms#terms-Biblio
graphicResource




On 11/12/15, 4:21 PM, "Joćo Paulo Almeida" <jpalmeida@ieee.org> wrote:

>Dear All,
>
>Some comments and questions with respect to the current DUV editor¹s
>draft:
>
>1) Why was duv:UsageActor introduced in the DUV?  What is the relation
>between duv:UsageActor, prov:Agent and prov:SoftwareAgent? Why can¹t we
>use prov:Agent?
>
>2) In example 2,  duv:Person should probably be foaf:Person?
>
>3) Some time ago, I suggested that duv:Citation should be renamed
>duv:DataCitationAct. This is to me a better name than Citation. First,
>because the nominalization Citation is polysemic (it could mean an act or
>the result of the act). Second, because cito was already precise in
>specifying that this is an Act, we should also be precise. Third, the
>name 
>makes a clear distinction between the general term CitationAct, and the
>more specific term DataCitationAct we are introducing.
>
>4) Why is the direction of duv:hasUsage from dcat:Dataset and
>dcat:Distribution to duv:Usage? Why isn¹t there an opposite property
>(which to me makes more sense)?
>
>5) What is the domain of duv:hasProducer, duv:hasDistributor,
>duv:hasPublisher? 
>
>6) The diagram seems to suggest that the domain of duv:hasAuthor is
>duv:Citation, but the tables do not fix a domain, and suggest that
>skos:Concept is also in the range.
>
>7) Why is skos:Concept in the range of duv:hasAuthor(or duv:author),
>duv:hasProducer, duv:hasDistributor, duv:hasPublisher? This is quite
>counterintuitive to me. How can a concept author, produce, distribute or
>publish anything?
>
>
>8) Why should DUV do versioning of resources? I agree with Phil in this
>and I think that duv:edition is not in the scope of DUV.
>
>9) I don¹t understand duv:hasAccessInformation (what is the domain?)
>
>
>Regards,
>Joćo Paulo
>
>
>
>
>
>On 11/12/15, 2:52 PM, "Phil Archer" <phila@w3.org> wrote:
>
>>Ah, I think we all came up with the same solution, zooming in to
>>different sections and describing them.
>>
>>The ORG ontology spec just has one digram but the prose is clearly
>>broken up into sections (http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/).
>>
>>On 11/12/2015 16:06, Eric Stephan wrote:
>>> Okay I'm beginning to understand the rationale behind your model
>>>synopsis
>>> paragraph concept.  I really like this, and will find a way to do as
>>>you
>>> suggested.
>>>
>>> Phil because you raised the same concern, will the supplemental
>>>paragraph
>>> address help address this issue?
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 7:57 AM, Laufer <laufer@globo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi, Eric,
>>>>
>>>> I agree with the 3 points.
>>>>
>>>> The diagram is a visualization. But, at the same time, it could give a
>>>> better understanding of all stuff together. Maybe it needs all the
>>>>building
>>>> blocks but not all the properties. In that sense, is why I,ve talked
>>>>about
>>>> the text explanation. The diagram is the one that readers will try to
>>>> understand the model..
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Laufer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> .  .  .  .. .  .
>>>> .        .   . ..
>>>> .     ..       .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Em 11/12/2015 13:40, Eric Stephan escreveu:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Laufer,
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks for your feedback.  I responded to Phil earlier, because
>>>>he
>>>> had the same concern.  For documents such as these I've always
>>>>thought 
>>>>of
>>>> the diagrams as a general orientation to the vocabulary, not all
>>>> properties and classes will be shown in the diagram.  I was thinking
>>>>of
>>>> this as being more conceptual than exact.
>>>>
>>>>   So I guess I'm saying:
>>>> 1) Specification needs to be complete and include all the detail
>>>>including
>>>> all the properties in the model picture and additional needed for the
>>>> vocabulary.
>>>> 2) TTL needs to match specification.
>>>> 3) Model picture is more of a visual reference and can be missing some
>>>> properties and classes.
>>>>
>>>> I guess another option is breaking the picture an overview and then
>>>> detailed view of citation, usage, and feedback.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> Eric S
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Laufer <laufer@globo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi, Eric, Bernadette and Sumit,
>>>>>
>>>>> First of all, congratulations for the document!
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Here are the list of things that I saw in the diagram and not in
>>>>>the
>>>>> specification:
>>>>>
>>>>> cito:hasCitingEntity
>>>>> duv:hasCitationCreator
>>>>> oa:hasTarget
>>>>> duv:hasUserFeedback
>>>>> duv:hasRating
>>>>> duv:hasUsageType
>>>>> duv:hasUsage
>>>>> duv:perfomedBy
>>>>> duv:performs
>>>>> duv:hasUsageTool
>>>>> duv:hasRole
>>>>>
>>>>>   2. Here are the list of the things that I saw in the specification
>>>>>and
>>>>> not in the diagram (not sure if all of them really should appear in
>>>>>the
>>>>> diagram):
>>>>>
>>>>> duv:hasProducer
>>>>> duv:hasDistributor
>>>>> duv:edition
>>>>> duv:hasAccessInformation
>>>>> duv:developedBy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. I guess that some names that were changed were not updated in the
>>>>> document text:
>>>>>
>>>>> duv:Feedback --> duv:UserFeedback
>>>>> duv:author --> duv:hasAuthor
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. I think (only my opinion) that a reader could be confused reading
>>>>>the
>>>>> examples before the vocabulary overview. Maybe the order of the two
>>>>> sections could be changed.
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. I miss an "informal text serialization" explaining the diagram.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks a lot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers, Laufer
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> .  .  .  .. .  .
>>>>> .        .   . ..
>>>>> .     ..       .
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>-- 
>>
>>
>>Phil Archer
>>W3C Data Activity Lead
>>http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>>
>>http://philarcher.org
>>+44 (0)7887 767755
>>@philarcher1
Received on Friday, 11 December 2015 18:47:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 11 December 2015 18:47:09 UTC