- From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
- Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 18:59:06 +0200
- To: DC-PROVENANCE@jiscmail.ac.uk, "<public-prov-wg@w3.org>" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAExK0Ddko5wmUfdSPjfXe1pfKgssj97zi4norV1pJe-G6ofrHA@mail.gmail.com>
Dear Thomas. I have just pushed the edits from your reviews (both parts). You can find a detailed response here: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Tom_Baker The version with your edits: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/51a664e72cf6/dc-note/releases/NOTE-prov-dc-20130430/Overview.html Thank you very much for your detailed review. Please let me know if you have any further suggestion. Best, Daniel 2013/4/1 Daniel Garijo <dgarijov@gmail.com> > Thanks for your detailed review, Tom! > I'll create an issue and a detailed response in the next days. > > Best, > Daniel > > > > 2013/3/30 Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org> > >> Daniel, Kai, other contributors, >> >> Attached is my review of "Dublin Core to PROV Mapping: W3C Working Draft >> 12 >> March 2013" [1]. Bravo to the editors and contributors for a complex and >> solid >> piece of work! >> >> My comments are divided into two postings. This posting addresses: >> >> 1. Status of the Turtle representations and the subclasses they declare >> 2. Various points of substance >> 3. Minor editorial points >> >> The next posting will continue with: >> >> 4. Issues in the Introduction re: Dublin Core and "DC Terms" >> >> I reviewed the Mapping primarily from the standpoint of Dublin Core. >> Though I >> am currently the CIO of DCMI, my review has not gone through DCMI process >> so >> should be considered my opinion. I have also reviewed aspects of the >> Mapping >> from the standpoint of one who has been involved in various contexts with >> W3C >> process (e.g., Point 1 below). >> >> What I am not qualified to comment on in much detail are aspects related >> to the >> PROV model, which I have not studied in detail. There were one or two >> places, >> flagged below, where I thought that deeper knowledge of the model was >> really >> necessary for understanding particular points. However, it speaks well >> for the >> authors that I felt I could follow it without extensive knowledge of >> PROV. I >> like it when the authors suggest that the Mapping could facilitate PROV >> adoption by allowing users to use Dublin Core statements as a starting >> point >> for generating more complex PROV representations -- a very good idea and >> one >> that could inform a very instructive tutorial or primer. >> >> Tom >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-prov-dc-20130312/ >> >> ====================================================================== >> 1. Status of the Turtle representations and the subclasses they declare >> >> The Turtle representations of the mappings are buried in anchors to >> the hyperlink "here" in the Abstract but are not further mentioned. >> Generally speaking, the use of "here" as a hyperlink is not ideal in >> specifications such as this, which many people may read in the form >> of a printout, or offline, perhaps in Instapaper on an iPad. >> >> I suggest: >> -- Create entries for the Turtle representations in the References >> section [3], then cite them in the specification. >> >> -- Discuss the Turtle representations somewhere in the specification >> besides just the Abstract, and add some explanation clarifying >> their >> status. Do they fall under a W3C namespace policy? Are they >> linked to >> WD-prov-dc such that any future revisions in the Turtle >> representations >> could only be undertaken in the context of a revision of >> WD-prov-dc? >> Are they provided merely as a convenience for readers, or do the >> editors >> intend them to be used (and how)? I do not think a long text is >> required, but it would be good to clarify for the reader what >> these are >> and how they fit into W3C publication and maintenace processes, >> and to >> make their URIs visible in References. >> >> -- In Section 3.2, I am puzzled about the status of "subclasses" such >> as >> prov:Publish. I see that these subclass declarations in Turtle are >> mirrored in [2], but I see no referece to prov:Publish in PROV-O. >> It is unclear, in other words, whether: >> >> To properly reflect the meaning of the Dublin Core terms, >> more specific >> subclasses are needed: >> >> means >> >> more specific subclasses would be needed (but haven't been >> created) >> >> or >> >> more specific subclasses have been created >> >> If the latter, then the text would need to point to PROV-O. If >> the >> former, then it would be doubly important to clarify the status >> of the >> Turtle representations. Does [2] intend to encourage people to use >> prov:Publish in their data? >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-dc-directmappings.ttl >> [2] http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-dc-refinements.ttl >> [3] >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-prov-dc-20130312/#informative-references >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 2. Various points of substance >> >> -- 1.1 Namespaces (and the term "namespace") >> >> The term "namespace" is used a bit loosely here. It is worth noting >> that >> the current draft RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax spec, while >> still >> just a Working Draft, concludes that [1]: >> >> The term "namespace" on its own does not have a well-defined >> meaning in >> the context of RDF, but is sometimes informally used to mean >> "namespace >> IRI" or "RDF vocabulary". >> >> I suggest changing the name of the section and tweaking a few things: >> >> 1.1 Namespace URIs >> >> The namespace URIs used in this document can be seen in Table 2. >> >> Table 2: Namespace URIs used in the document >> >> prefix Namespace IRI Used for >> owl <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> The OWL >> vocabulary [OWL2-OVERVIEW]. >> rdfs <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> The RDFS >> vocabulary [RDFS]. >> prov <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> The PROV >> vocabulary [PROV-DM]. >> dct <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> The DCMI >> /terms/ vocabulary [DCTERMS]. >> ex <http://example.org> >> Application-dependent URIs. Used in examples. >> >> [1] >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#vocabularies >> >> -- 3.3.2 >> The sentence: >> >> It is important to note that since the range for dates in Dublin >> Core is a >> rdfs:Literal and xsd:dateTime for the prov:atTime property, the >> mapping is >> only valid for those literals that are xsd:dateTime. >> >> is not very precise. Perhaps you mean something like: >> >> It is important to note that since the range for DC date >> properties is >> rdfs:Literal, and the range of the prov:atTime property is the >> class >> of literals with the datatype xsd:dateTime, the mapping is only >> valid >> for those literals that have (or could be assigned?) the datatype >> xsd:dateTime. >> >> ...assuming that "range... is the class of literals with the datatype >> xsd:dateTime" is a correct interpretation (I haven't checked the other >> specs). >> >> -- 3.3.3 >> The sentence: >> >> In Dublin Core, most of the properties relating entities to other >> entities >> don't describe the involvement of a specific activity (e.g., >> dct:format, >> dct:source or isVersionOf). >> >> is awkwardly worded. Do you perhaps mean: >> >> In Dublin Core, most of the properties relating entities to other >> entities >> do not imply activities related to provenance (e.g., dct:format, >> dct:source or isVersionOf). >> >> -- 3.3.3.1 >> I found the following sentence hard to understand: >> >> The replacement is the result of a "search and replace" Activity, >> which >> used a specialization of the replaced entity (_:old_entity) and >> produced a >> specialization of the replacement (_:new_entity). >> >> ...but I do not know the PROV model well enough to propose a clearer >> text. >> >> -- 3.4 Cleanup >> >> I wonder if "cleanup" is the best heading for this section. After >> using >> SPARQL, as described in the previous sections, one ends up with a PROV >> graph that has blank nodes for entities, and the process of assigning >> identifiers to those blank nodes could be thought of as "cleanup". >> So far, >> so good. >> >> What the "suggestions" then discuss, however, are not methods for >> cleaning >> up an existing generated graph, but different templates for generating >> _new_ and _different_ PROV graphs from the same DC statements. As I >> read >> it, this section has more to do with different possible ways to >> generate >> graphs, starting with somewhat different assumptions (related to >> different >> possible ways to model things using PROV), and resulting in different >> patterns. If my reading is correct, then I would suggest saying this >> more >> clearly in the introduction to the section and giving the section a >> more >> specific name, such as "Generating PROV graphs using different >> templates". >> >> -- Table 6 - dct:references >> >> For most properties, the commentary says they have been "excluded" >> or "left out" of the mapping. For dct:references, however, the text >> says >> that dct:references "has been dropped from the mapping". This wording >> makes it sound like there was an earlier, published mapping from which >> this was dropped -- more like a change note for a specification than >> part >> of the specification itself. I suggest using "excluded" or "left >> out". >> >> -- Reference in "Reference" section >> Currently reads: >> [DCTERMS] >> Dublin Core Terms Vocabulary. 8 December 2010. URL: >> http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/ >> >> Should read: >> [DCTERMS] >> DCMI Metadata Terms. 8 December 2010. URL: >> http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/ >> >> -- In the sentence: >> >> For example, when mapping dates only unqualified properties can >> be extracted, >> >> I was unsure what you mean by "unqualified". >> >> ====================================================================== >> 3. Minor editorial points >> >> -- s/don't/do not/ (3.3.3), also search/replace "couldn't", "doesn't", >> and other contractions >> >> -- "cleanup" and "clean-up" are used inconsistently >> >> -- s/refering/referring/ >> >> -- 2.1 Provenance in Dublin Core: Section "Descriptive Terms": replace >> ", etc." >> with a full stop because the sentence already starts with "Some >> examples". >> >> -- 3.3. Change "We divide the queries in different categories" => "into >> different >> categories". >> >> -- >> Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org> >> >> ######################################################################## >> >> To unsubscribe from the DC-PROVENANCE list, click the following link: >> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=DC-PROVENANCE&A=1 >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 9 April 2013 16:59:34 UTC