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

Re: My comments on DUV

From: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 20:00:55 -0300
Message-ID: <CANx1PzwbfVQPDy+L13wV5ufeXiOZiZyChdVKRdacLVemCJuxUA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "contact@carlosiglesias.es" <contact@carlosiglesias.es>
Cc: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Carlos,

Thanks a lot for your detailed feedback!

My comments are inline.

2015-06-05 10:10 GMT-03:00 Carlos Iglesias <contact@carlosiglesias.es>:

> Hello all,
>
> Sorry for not being able to join today.
>
> Here is my review for the DUV. Given all the reasons below I recommend not
> to publish it yet, even if just for early feedback (at least the different
> inconsistencies in the document should be solved first). I didn't have the
> time to go through the other documents yet, so for those I just abstain.
>

In the last meeting the group voted for the publication of the FPWD of DUV.
I suggest to correct some of the minor mistakes that you found and to
include the major changes as issues in the document. I already created new
issues for this.


- General
>
> A general problem I see is that typical use case is for Datasets to be
> able to refer to use examples when we are focusing here on the other way
> around. I know reverse queries are still possible but likely far more
> complicated. To improve on that side I suggest to
>
> (1) add a note on how to make a reference from datasets to use examples as
> well (e.g. using cito:isCitedAsDataSourceBy; dct:bibliographicCitation,
> etc.)
>
> (2) include a single "ReuseExample" superclass (with a better name) so one
> could easily extend dcat with such reverse property.
>

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your proposal. Could you please give an
example?

>
> Also, definitions reused from other vocabularies are sometimes quoted and
> others not. Several links for URIs for ranges, subclasses, etc are missing.
>

ok!

>
> - dcat:Dataset
>
> Should usage be specified at the Dataset or Distribution level? I'm more
> for the later.
>

This is a good question. A issues was created for this:
https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/169


> - duv:Application
>
> Having a look at the description I think that a more general label may be
> desirable e.g. Software
> Moreover, we may want also to reuse earl:Software instead
>

 New issue created: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/170

>
> - duv:developedBy
>
> I think the purpose here is not to develop a Soft vocabulary and thus
> shouldn't go too much into that direction, so I propose to adopt
> dct:creator or doap:developer here instead.
>

 New issue created: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/171

>
> - duv:generates
>
> Considering the generation of a dataset a kind of usage sounds quite
> strange for me. I think it may be removed.
>

The idea is to show that the usage of a dataset usage may result in the
generation of a new dataset, but i think this is not clear.
New issue created: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/172



> - duv:Feedback
>
> Having a look at the diagram it is an ao:Annotation subclass, but that was
> not included in the description where it is a subclass of rev:Feedback?
> Also I think the current definition - which is apparently the rev:Feedback
> one, is not suitable for our use case (we don't want to give feedback on
> any Review but on Datasets)
>

It's true! we're gonna correct this.


>
> Furthermore, I don't understand why to subclass ao:Annotation and then not
> to reuse directly oa:hasBody and oa:hasTarget instead duv:hasRating and
> duv:endorses respectively (or at least subclass both of them).
>

duv:endorses is a subproperty of oa:has_target.
oa:hasBody has a different meaning from duv:hasRating and they should be
treated differently.

>
> - bibo:Document
>
> Current purl namespace is apparently broken.
> Why not to use foaf:Document which is equivalent?
>

it sounds good!


>
> - duv:cites
>
> Looks like on one hand we are trying to replicate the cito:CitationAct
> model (with cited and citing entities) and on the other we are trying to
> bypass it using a direct duv:cites property. I would choose between one or
> the other to avoid inconsistent usage.
>

New issue created:  https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/173

>
> - duv:hasCitingEntity
>
> Why to subclass this here? also at the diagram we are using
> cito:hasCitingEntity directly
>

ok!

>
> - duv:retains
>
> I don't have any idea on what's the purpose of this property.
> Feedback has itself as citing entity and at the same time is a set of
> provenance descriptions?
> No clue, seriously. Maybe just me.
>

New issue created:  https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/174

>
> - ao:annotatedBy
>
> Range should be foaf:Agent
>

ok!


>
> - duv:has_datasetCorrection
>
> Not in the diagram.
> Inconsistent label in the definition (has_dataCorrection)
>

ok!


>
> - duv:DatasetCorrection
>
> Shouldn't this be a dcat:Dataset as well?
>

New issue created: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/175


>
> - duv:WebThing
>
> Subclass of duv:Experience that does not exists
>

ok!


>
> - Example 1
>
> I find the use of .configfile as an example of dataset consumption a
> little bit confusing (although strictly speaking probably valid).
>
> - Example 2
>
> oa:hasRating does not exists it is duv:
>

ok!


> using oa:hasBody and oa:hasTarget here while defining new subproperties
> for them as well is quite confusing (although valid again)
> See also my previous comment on removing those.
>
> - Example 3
>
> I think that following current model cito:hasCitedEntity should also be
> included at :paperA
>

ok!

Later on examples will be rewritten according to the updates that will be
made in the document.

kind regards,
Bernadette

>
>
> Best,
>  CI.
>
> ---
>
> Carlos Iglesias.
> Open Data Consultant.
> +34 687 917 759
> contact@carlosiglesias.es
> @carlosiglesias
> http://es.linkedin.com/in/carlosiglesiasmoro/en
>



-- 
Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 11 June 2015 23:01:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 11 June 2015 23:01:47 UTC