W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > November 2012

Re: review of prov-dc

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 12:24:12 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|8aded9c45428d8ed348d3df58f9b5a04oAMCOE08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|50AF6AEC.7050002@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Daniel,

Responding to your comments.

On 11/23/2012 10:54 AM, Daniel Garijo wrote:
> Hi Luc.
> Thanks for your feedback. I will go and discuss it with the rest of 
> the authors, but
> I can give you some initial comments about the main concerns (see below):
>
> 2012/11/23 Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk 
> <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>>
>
>
>     Hi Kai and Daniel,
>
>     I like the document, because it is providing interesting connections
>     between the two ontologies.  And for this, it is useful, and we should
>     publish it.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>     There are a couple of issues that I find problematic and need to be
>     addressed.
>
>
>     1. I don't think that what you say about prov-constraints is correct.
>        The example of Figure 2 is perfectly valid.  The activity generated
>        doc1, and *then* used ex:doc1.  That's probably not what you
>     want to express here,
>        and so the text needs to be rewritten to reflect that.
>
> What you understood is not what we meant: we were referring to an 
> activity that used doc1 and then
> generated doc1.  We will rephrase it accordingly.

What I understood is what your provenance graph shows.
Figure 2 does not make explicit "used then generated".


>
>     2. A couple of issues about the mapping:
>     2.1 It's unfortunate that you map dct:replaces to
>     prov:wasInfluencedBy.
>         PROV specs suggest to use more specific relations.
>
> This was discussed in the group for a long time. The example that made 
> us propose the mapping was related to
> changing a book in a catalog. The replacement could be unrelated to 
> the former book, so it is not a derivation,
> specialization or alternate. The dc definition is quite broad in this 
> regard.

Derivation does not require the subject and object to be the "same 
resource". A cake was derived from flour.

Thanks,
Luc

>     2.2 For dct:isVersionOf, I suggest below to look at an example in
>     prov-dm.
>         THis looks like a subproperty of prov:specializationOf
>
> As happened with the example before, the dc concept was quite broad. 
> We will revise the newer changes to
> specialization to see if we can narrow the relationship
>
>
>     3. I am really keen we adopt the layout conventions for graphs. In
>     particular,
>        Figure 1 does not follow it.
>        Since you seem to adopt the top down layout,
>        I also suggest that the activity should appear above the entity
>     ex:doc1 in  Figure 2.
>
> Thanks, I will take a look on the images once again.
>
>
>     With this addressed, I think it's good to go to FPWD.
>
>     Cheers,
>     Luc
>
> Best,
> Daniel
> PS: Tracker, this is issue 602: 
> https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/602
>
>
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>     - this more specific vocabulary is called the *TERMS*
>       I don't understand what you mean? 'Metadata Terms'
>
>     -  "Finally, dct:replaces relates the document to another document
>     ex:doc2 which had probably some kind of influence on ex:doc1."
>        Why don't you say wasRevisionOf?
>
>     - to the definition of the  Provenance Working Group [PROV-DEF] a
>
>       Write:
>
>        to the <a
>     href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-dm-20120724/#dfn-provenance">definition
>     of provenance</a> of the PROV Working Group [PROV-DM]
>
>     - Description metadat: alternative??? Has it anything to do with
>     prov:alternate?
>
>     - It is convervative classification?
>       In what way is it conservative. You seem to indicate that others
>     elements
>       could still be classified as provenance. May be you mean
>     minimalistic?
>
>     - "The original resource becomes part of the provenance record of the
>       derived resource. "  I don't think it's what you mean.
>       May be you wan to say
>       "The DESCRIPTION of the original resource becomes part of the
>     provenance
>        record of the derive resource".
>
>     - section 2.1: I was getting confused : which one is source, which
>     one is target?
>
>     - The layout of the diagram should follow the conventions in:
>     http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Diagrams
>     In particular, the directionality of edges is crucial.
>
>     - section 2.2: replace " is not compliant with the PROV constraints"
>
>       Why is not compliant? you mean not valid, yes?  I think
>       this is a valid graph, which states that ex:doc1 was generated by
>       activity, and *then* used by the same activity.  It is valid
>       according to prov-constraints.  It may not be what you want to say.
>
>     - Figure 2: IN caption: If figure is invalid, state it in the caption.
>
>     - table 3: add links to definitions of dc terms and prov terms.
>
>
>     - table 3: agent: which then has responsibility for an activity,
>       ... and entities and other agents
>
>     - table 3: "The rights holder has the attribution of the activity
>     that created the licensed resource." ... strange to talk about
>     activity, since prov:wasAttributedTo does not have an activity.
>
>
>     - table 3: likewise: "He is the one involved in the creation
>     activity that led to the resource. He has the attribution for that
>     activity"
>
>       why *the one*?  he is an agent involved ... (there may be others).
>
>     - table3 : same issue for publishe and contributer.
>        It is strage to read " he is attributed to take part in those
>     activities".
>         Either you should said "he is associated with those
>     activities" or "this entity is attributed to this agent".
>
>
>     - "dct:replaces    rdfs:subPropertyOf    prov:wasInfluencedBy This
>     mapping is not straightforward. There is a relation between two
>     resources when the former replaces the latter, but it is not
>     necessarily derivation, revision, specification or alternate.
>     Thus, the term is mapped to prov:wasInfluencedBy"
>
>      It's unclear why the mapping is not straightforward. In any case,
>     the document should not say it.  I am unclear why it is not
>     necessarily a derivation/revision.
>
>     It's kind of anoying that this is mapped to influence, since we
>     say it's better to use more specific relations.  What's wrong with
>     derivation/revision?
>
>     specification ---> specialization?
>
>     - dct:issued ... ". It is mapped as a subproperty " What is
>     mapped? grammatically, it is the date, but this doesn't seem to work.
>
>     - It's difficult to understand the text for mapping of dates
>
>     -  "it is supported by PROV and it is due to the difference
>     between Dublin Core and PROV resources" ->
>        it is supported by PROV and it is due to the difference between
>     Dublin Core RESOURCES and PROV ENTITIES:
>
>     - it does not comply with all the PROV constraints
>       See note above, I think it implies something different.
>
>     - table 4, second row:
>     - Similar to the previous property??? what do you mean?
>
>     - "prov:wasRevisionOf is more restrictive in the sense that it
>     refers to revised version of a resource, while dct:isVersionOf
>     involves versions, editions or adaptations of the original
>     resource." I don't understand what you mean.
>
>     YOu may want to look at
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#anexample-alternate2
>     Wouldn't you say that
>
>     tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215 dct:isVersionOf <http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/>
>
>     So, this looks like a specialization?
>
>     - section 2.4: naming conversion for prov:PublicationActivity should
>       be reconsidered.
>       Why not prov:Publish?
>
>     - What happens if a same entity has both dc:created and
>     dct:issued. Can you relate the Creation and Publication activities ?
>
>     - Section 2.5.3, clean up solution 2)
>      Does Dublin Core make assumptions about dates? Are they all the
>     same clock, or all synchronized? If not, then we can't order by date.
>
>      In fact, isn't there a logical order, where creation takes place
>     before publication?
>
>     Cheers,
>     Luc
>
>     -- 
>     Professor Luc Moreau
>     Electronics and Computer Science   tel: +44 23 8059 4487
>     <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%204487>
>     University of Southampton          fax: +44 23 8059 2865
>     <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865>
>     Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
>     <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>     United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>     <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm>
>
>
>

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Friday, 23 November 2012 12:26:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 23 November 2012 12:26:51 GMT