Re: dc review

Thanks Tim.
I will deal with these during the weekend.

I had a quick view over the suggestions, and there is one comment regarding
AgentClass.
Agent Class is narrowing rdf:Class. The definition is "a group of Agents",
which is not
very helpful. I also thought that it was some kind of prov:Agent, but Kai
told me that it
is a term to define classes of Agents, rather than Agents.
For example, dct:Agent is *an instance* of dct:AgentClass (
http://purl.org/dc/terms/Agent)
Mapping AgentClass as prov:Agent might bring unexpected consequences, and I
 don't think we have the bandwith to deal with them now.

Best,
Dani


2013/4/19 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>

> Daniel,
>
> Continuing from
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/dc-note/releases/NOTE-prov-dc-20130430/Overview.html#list_of_direct_mappings2_classes
> and finishing to the end.
>
> I tried to stay "spelling and grammar" checker, but I slipped into an
> actual review…. so ignore anything that is too late for the WG process.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>
>
> 27)
>
> Does "with small changes for creator and rightsHolder)" need some
> formatting for the terms?
>
>
> 28)
>
> 3.3.1.1 and others
>
> Could you clean up the spacing so that it is less jaggy and easier to read?
> The indents are quite drastic. I'd suggestion 3-space indents.
>
> 29)
>
> Please be consistent with the space before the semicolon. Include it, or
> not. but be consistent.
> (I prefer no space-before-semicolon)
>
> 30)
>
> "Dates often correspond with a who-property, e.g., creator and created or
> publisher and issued."
> is hard to follow.
> ==>
> suggest:
> "Dates often correspond with a who-property. For example, date created
> implies a creator and date issued implies a publisher."
>
>
> 31)
>
> 3.3.2.1's first sentence isn't really a sentence, I think b/c you're
> pretending the section title is the subject.
>
> "Term defined as a point or period of time associated with an event in the
> lifecycle of the resource."
>
>
> 32)
>
> No sentences in the following sections leave the reader stranded
> 3.3.2.2 dct:created
>
> 3.3.2.3 dct:issued
>
> 3.3.2.4 dct:modified
>
> 3.3.2.5 dct:dateAccepted
>
> 3.3.2.7 dct:dateSubmitted
>
>
> suggest to add a sentence in each, "similar to as discussed in XXX,
> dct:created is mapped to PROV thusly"
>
> 33)
>
> "a intro" should be "An Intro" in the following, but I suggest a further
> rewrite
>
> "(for instance if a "Introduction to provenance" book replaces the
> "Provenance in a nutshell" book in a catalog)"
> =>
> "(for example, if a catalog replaces a book entitled "Introduction to
> provenance" with one entitled "Provenance in a nutshell")"
>
>
> 34)
>
> "and conflate the blank nodes result of one activity with the input of the
> subsequent activity. "
> doesn't make sense. After a few reads, I think I get the gist, but this
> could be stated more more clearly.
>
>
> 35)
>
> spelling:
>
> "either because thay are not suitable"
>
>
> 36)
>
> I don't buy Table 9's claim that dct:accrualMethod should be excluded.
> Isn't it a prov:Plan of some Association of some Activity that generated
> the entity?
>
>
> 37)
>
> For dct:available, I suggest to mention generation, too.
>
> "Property that states when a resource is available. There is no direct
> mapping between this property and the notion of invalidation in PROV."
> =>
> "Property that states when a resource is available. There is no direct
> mapping between this property and the PROV notions of generation and
> invalidation."
>
> 38)
>
> Dangling "to"
>
> "The educational level of the audience for which the resource is intended
> to."
> ==>
> "The educational level of the audience for which the resource is intended."
>
>
> 39)
>
> Table 9's dcterms:identifier justification ("An unambiguous reference on a
> given context.") contorts DC's definition of
>
> "An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context."
>
> suggest to just use DC's original definition.
>
>
> 40)
>
>
> table 9's instructionalMethod phrasing is much more cluttered than DC's
> original:
> "A process, used to engender knowledge, attitudes and skills, that the
> described resource is designed to support."
>
>
> suggest to use DC's original definition
>
>
> 41)
>
> "This is not related the provenance of the resource"
> ==>
> "This is not related to the provenance of the resource"
>
>
> 42)
>
> "a library dependency in script program"
> is ambiguous with "building of books" libraries.
> suggest rewrite to:
>
> "a programming scripts' dependency on another dependency"
>
>
> 43)
>
> Table 9's dct:valid claims "The notion of invalidation is defined in
> PROV-DM, but not the notion of validation."
>
> I disagree.
>
> DC definition is "Date (often a range) of validity of a resource." and
> could correspond to PROV's generation and invalidation of the resource or
> one of its specializations.
>
> Please acknowledge this relation and provide a stronger justification for
> why it wasn't' included.
>
>
> 44)
>
> rdf:Class does not exist.
>
> it should be rdfs:Class.
>
>
>
> 45)
>
> Table 10's claim on dct:AgentClass is wrong.
>
> DC definition: "Examples of Agent Class include groups seen as classes,
> such as students, women, charities, lecturers."
>
> Here, I presume "class" is in the educational audience sense.
>
> dct:AgentClass is a subclass of prov:Organization, specifically those that
> are viewed as "an educational audience".
>
>
> 46)
>
> Table 10 on dct:FileFormat:
>
> Format of a digital resource. This class is not described by any of the DC
> properties and normally is directly associated to literals (such as ".doc",
> "jpg", etc.). Therefore it is not part of this mapping.
>
> "This class is not described by any of the DC properties "?
> * What about http://purl.org/dc/terms/format ? It's range is
> http://purl.org/dc/terms/MediaTypeOrExtent and
> http://purl.org/dc/terms/FileFormat is narrower than
> http://purl.org/dc/terms/MediaType
>
>
> "normally is directly associated to literals (such as ".doc", "jpg", etc.)"
> * Under what definition of "normal"?
> * Whey are you making claims beyond the DC definition?
>
> These two justifications need to be revised. And if not, just removed b/c
> they do more damage than good.
>
> dct:FileFormat is a subclass of prov:Entity.
>
>
> same objections on the rows for MediaType and MediaTypeOrExtent and
> PhysicalMedium
>
>
>
>
> 47)
>
> or other authority".
> =>
> or other authority."
>
>
> 48)
>
> For PeriodOfTime in Table 10 you should mention that PROV models
> instantaneous events, and entities and activities can be seen as occupying
> intervals of time, but there is no clear mapping.
>
>
> 49)
>
> SizeOrDuration needs a good justification, since "Dimension or time taken
> to execute something." looks exactly like provenance.
> Where did "Dimension or time taken to execute something." come from? It's
> misleading form the DC definition:
>
> """A dimension or extent, or a time taken to play or execute.
> Examples include a number of pages, a specification of length, width, and
> breadth, or a period in hours, minutes, and seconds."""
>
> You should note that the "duration" aspect of the size is prospective,
> while PROV only addresses retrospective durations.
>
>
> 50)
>
> "Range of the dct:conformsTo property to associate a resource with its
> standard. This class is not described by any of the DC properties "
>
> what does "described" mean? And, why does not being "described" justify it
> not being in the mapping?
>
> Please outline these assumptions and rules into the beginning of the
> section for this table.
>
>
>
> 51)
>
> What is a "refinement"?
> Please add a link to where it is introduced.
>
>
> "If the refinements proposed in this document are used, then the inverse
> of the complex mapping patterns can be applied. However, if the refinements
> are not used then only a few DC statements can be inferred from plain PROV
> statements."
>
>
> 52)
>
> Add to: (to reinforce that DC is more specific)
>
> "For example, when mapping dates there is no information to guess whether
> an activity with an associated date is a creation, a modification or a
> publication activity."
> ==>
> "For example, when mapping dates there is no information to guess whether
> an activity with an associated date is a creation, a modification or a
> publication activity. This is because DC provides more specific classes of
> activities."
>
> "Likewise, the agents involved cannot be mapped to creators, contributors,
> or publishers."
> ==>
> "Likewise, the agents involved cannot be mapped to creators, contributors,
> or publishers. This is because DC provides more specific classes of agency."
>
>
>
> 53)
>
> "PROV models a provenance chain, but it provides almost no information
> about the involved resources themselves."
> =>
> "Because PROV is focused on modeling provenance chains, it does not
> provide ways to describe the resources being chained together."
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 18, 2013, at 3:29 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
>
> > Daniel,
> >
> > Up to and including
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/dc-note/releases/NOTE-prov-dc-20130430/Overview.html#list_of_direct_mappings2_classes
> >
> > will send the rest later,
> > Regards,
> > Tim
> >
> >
> > 1)
> > "Online Computer Library center" -> Online Computer Library Center
> >
> >
> > 2)
> > section 1.2 extra space in the link:
> >
> > "Section 3.4 intro"
> >
> > 3)
> >
> > Section 2 "Section 2.1: The relation of the DC terms with provenance."
> >
> >
> > 4)
> >
> > Capital L in "Derivation and licensing Terms (How?): " ?
> >
> > 5)
> >
> > missing prefix on: "heir access (accessRights) are con"
> >
> >
> > 6)
> >
> >
> > comma and spacing is odd in table 3 ", FileFormat, ,Frequency, "
> >
> >
> > 7)
> >
> > clicking on
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/dc-note/releases/NOTE-prov-dc-20130430/Overview.html#example1truncates the title and description.
> >
> > suggest moving the anchor up.
> >
> >
> > 8)
> >
> > extra period in "complex mapping defined in this document.. Blank nodes
> are u"
> >
> >
> > 9)
> > end of section 2
> >
> > would be nice to have a link to "cleanup phase" in "leaving the
> conflating of nodes to the cleanup phase"
> >
> >
> > 10)
> >
> > is "copy righted" one word?
> >
> >
> > 11)
> >
> > add link to "See rationale for dct:isFormatOf " in table 4.
> >
> >
> > 12)
> >
> > phrase is odd: "Thus, the mapping is straightforward to
> prov:alternateOf."
> >
> >
> > 13)
> >
> > "dct:isFormatOf refers to another pre-existing resource which is the
> same but in another format" is incorrect.
> >
> >
> http://dublincore.org/documents/2012/06/14/dcmi-terms/?v=terms#isFormatOfsays nothing about "pre-existing"
> >
> >
> > 14)
> >
> >
> > "However, prov:wasDerivedFrom also covers broader derivations" is
> missing orange color for prov:wasDerivedFrom
> >
> >
> > 15)
> >
> > need period at end of "an update of an entity resulting in a new one"
> which is not covered by dct:source"
> >
> >
> > 16)
> >
> >
> >
> > missing period: "A bibliographic resource refers to books, articles,
> etc., which are concrete PROV entities"
> >
> >
> >
> > 17)
> >
> >
> >
> > "od"? in " is a system od symbols,"
> >
> >
> > 18)
> >
> > typo in "spatian regions or named places"
> >
> >
> > 19)
> >
> > "dct:MethodOfAccrual define" ==> "dct:MethodOfAccrual defines" (add "s")
> >
> > 20)
> >
> > spelling error "intelectual"
> >
> >
> > 21)
> >
> > missing period "A material thing, which is a concrete type of
> prov:Entity"
> >
> >
> > 22)
> >
> > http://purl.org/dc/terms/Policy
> >
> > do not need second period "r matters.". "
> >
> >
> > 23)
> >
> > capitalization "such as example 1 will infer that "
> >
> >
> > 24)
> >
> > What does "(2)" mean in Table 6: Direct mappings (Properties) (2) ?
> > and
> > Table 7: Direct mappings (Classes) (2)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 25)
> >
> > extra space table 6:
> >
> > "( "A related r"
> >
> >
> > 26)
> >
> > "refers to revised version of a resource" ==> "refers to a revised
> version of a resource" (add "a")
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Apr 18, 2013, at 12:53 PM, Daniel Garijo <
> dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Tim,
> >> now you can have a look.
> >> Best,
> >> Daniel
> >> PS: I know the files pointed by the doc are outdated. I'm working on it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2013/4/18 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
> >> I'll stand by.
> >> Thanks.
> >> TIm
> >>
> >> On Apr 18, 2013, at 11:31 AM, Daniel Garijo <
> dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Please let me push a couple of remaining changes that I have pending...
> >>> I'll send you an email when I'm done (hopefully soon after the
> telecon).
> >>> I have seen that Stian has sent me additional changes too.
> >>> Anyway, the link seems right.
> >>> Best,
> >>> Daniel
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2013/4/18 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
> >>> Daniel,
> >>>
> >>> So i'm looking through
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/dc-note/releases/NOTE-prov-dc-20130430/Overview.htmlfor typos and grammar?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Tim
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>