Re: Provenance Model

Hi Rob,

Thanks for the suggestion.

The provenance working group produced a mapping of dc terms to PROV [1].
This is a note, not a recommendation.

It suggests how dcterms:creator can be mapped to PROV terms.

I would have to check whether your proposed change is actually resolving 
the issue
I had raised.



On 28/09/2015 21:54, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> With the focus on making the model as approachable as possible, I'd 
> like to propose that we revise the provenance model somewhat.  In 
> particular, while the distinction between creator and annotator is 
> useful from an academic perspective, it seems to me to be firmly in 
> the 0.1% of use cases.
> Proposal:
> * Replace oa:annotatedBy with dcterms:creator  [creator]
> * Replace oa:annotatedAt with dcterms:created  [created]
> * Replace oa:serializedBy with prov:generatedBy  [generator]
> * Replace oa:serializedAt with prov:generated  [generated]
> Rationale:
> * It's simpler, and doesn't invent new terms unnecessarily.
> * It solves Luc's issue with the Prov constraints as the annotator is 
> no longer a generator of the annotation.
> * It also allows us to say that creator and created SHOULD be used 
> with embedded textual bodies, rather than hand-waving like we 
> currently do.
> * It avoids the "serialization" issue of whether the client that 
> created the annotation is the serializer, or the service that makes it 
> available.  The activity that generates the annotation is clearly the 
> user creating it, rather than the server serializing a graph into a 
> particular format.
> Thoughts?
> Rob
> -- 
> Rob Sanderson
> Information Standards Advocate
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305

Professor Luc Moreau
Head of the Web and Internet Science Group
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          twitter: @lucmoreau
Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK 

Received on Monday, 28 September 2015 21:08:20 UTC