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

Re: review of prov-dc

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 13:46:14 +0100
Message-ID: <CAExK0DcdDyBKMrytcOdfbGsne2e1VChbR98D6XWJPSLr3Y7jiQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
HI Luc,

2012/11/23 Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

>  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>
>
>>
>> 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".
>
I will revise it.

>
>
>
>
>> 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.
>
Agreed, but in the cake example, the flavour was an ingredient from which
the cake was derived.
In the catalog example if there is a replacement of a guide book of Paris
with "El Quijote", the latter is not derived from
the former, they are different entities.
That being said, the DM has evolved since we did the mapping. We will
revise your concerns and produce
an agreed response. These comments are just my current opinion.

Best,
Daniel

>
> 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
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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 12:46:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 23 November 2012 12:46:45 GMT