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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-402 (Feedback_SM): Feedback on the feedback from Simon Miles [Mapping PROV-O to Dublin Core]

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:24:59 +0200
Message-ID: <CAExK0Df_hFqfH8vH7qTrbmoW1kaaBay63N_HfnWb4roMN+7UNg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Simon,
as you already know, your feedback and comments were included in the
version of the DC note we released in July. This issue is still pending
review,
so I would like to know if any of the points you were raising still apply.

Can we close this issue?

Best,
Daniel

PS: My fault for not detecting this before.

2012/6/9 Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>

> PROV-ISSUE-402 (Feedback_SM): Feedback on the feedback from Simon Miles
> [Mapping PROV-O to Dublin Core]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/402
>
> Raised by: Daniel Garijo
> On product: Mapping PROV-O to Dublin Core
>
> Hello Daniel, Kai, Michael,
>
> I've read through the DC-PROV mapping documents, and have a few comments
> (mostly regarding the primer, as this is the substantial document so far).
> At this stage, my feedback is just comment without much constructive on how
> to address those comments, but I am happy to help do so.
>
> The primer is very good, and the first few sections in particular sets out
> the issues clearly and helpfully.
>
>
>
> I found that the sections from "What is ex:doc1" onwards referred a bit
> too much to the technical details of the mapping. I think we could
> introduce the key issues at a higher level first.
>
>
>
> The documents seem to assume that we are mapping DC RDF to PROV-O (rather
> than DC to PROV more generally), but I didn't see this explained anywhere.
>
>
>
> Many points (such as the questions at the end of "What is ex:doc1") would
> benefit from a running example to make the ideas concrete.
>
>
>
> I think it would help clarity to come up with more descriptive names than
> "Stage 1" and "Stage 2".
>
>
>
> As it's a draft, there are clearly some explanations missing, and so I
> note some points that need to be clarified:
>
>  - In "What is ex:doc1", option 1: why are the mappings potentially
> bloated? Needs higher level explanation.
>
>  - In option 2, why are the PROV semantics unclear? I wasn't clear what
> you were trying to say.
>
>  - What is the connection of the dc:publisher figure (which needs
> explanation itself) to the text?
>  - Are "PROV Specializations" the same as "specializationOf" in PROV? I
> didn't see the connection, and if there is no connection we should not use
> the term.
>
>
> I have to think through all the proposed mappings. Some direct mappings
> seem maybe not intuitive. I believe that PROV aims to cover a smaller area
> than DC (i.e. only provenance) but more generally (i.e. any kind of past
> occurrence). Therefore, I would not expect PROV terms to usually be
> subclasses of DC terms.
>
>
>
> For example, I don't think wasRevisionOf is intended to be more specific
> than isVersionOf, even if under certain readings of the words "revision"
> and "version" this might be intuitive (also, I remember debating whether
> isVersionOf actually links different versions of a resource, or links a
> version of a resource to the general document).
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 22 October 2012 17:25:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:20 UTC