Re: DUV review

Phil,

My responses below:


duv:author - why can't you just use dcterms:creator? You have this defined
as a sub property of dc:creator (not dcterms I notice, and dc is missing
from the table of namespaces). If there's a reason, OK, but dcterms:creator
is pretty universal.

>> +1 I had this originally - made a change at 1am this morning, not a good
time to go off road.

duv:hasPublisher - again, why not dcterms:publisher?

>> +1 See earlier response.

I can't find duv:hasProducer in the diagram but I see that it has a range
of prov:Agent and skos:Concept.

>> Not all properties will be shown in the diagram.  I was thinking of this
as being more conceptual than exact.  My preference is to provide a general
orientation.

That seems to be confusing two things there. The producer will be an Agent
that will have either a classification or a role of some kind. That seems
similar to org:classification which takes a skos:Concept as its range.

>> Hmmm okay will take a look and respond back later.

See just above
http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/#index-of-classes-and-properties

Googling around this topic I also came across
http://rdf-vocabulary.ddialliance.org/discovery.html#dfn-disco-fundedby which
seems very relevant, in particular a property fundedBy.

>> Interesting +1

duv:edition - looks like pav:version to me??

>> Is dc:hasVersion more socialized?

duv:Publication - not foaf:Document?

>> We had this as an action item for some time, with little response.  Yes
we can go with foaf:Document.

>> Having agreed with reusing vocabularies, one concern that I have as a
vocabulary editor is that the "definitions" listed in the other
vocabularies are so general that it is difficult to convey the meaning I
want to the reader.  How do we reuse properties and classes and "refine
their definition" to help orient people to the particular point of view we
are trying to convey?

Many thanks again,

Eric S



On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:

> Eric, Sumit, Berna,
>
> I'm just looking through the DUV again and have some questions/comments.
>
> First up - I like the new diagram, that looks much clearer and it's
> therefore easier to understand.
>
> I think you can remove the rev namespace from the table - I don't see
> that's use anywhere now?
>
> The note at the beginning of the examples (The vocabularies are out of
> date, and need to be improved. This needs to be an action item once the
> vocabulary specification has been completed.) isn't clear to me which
> vocabs you want to update. Maybe the note can be clarified a little?
>
> Going through the list of classes and properties I see several that on
> first appearance look like duplicates, or near duplicates, of existing well
> known examples. If there is good reason to define new classes and
> properties rather than reusing those others, OK, but I think the text
> should include that reasoning. If not, then maybe the existing term can be
> used?
>
> These are the ones that stand out to me:
>
> duv:author - why can't you just use dcterms:creator? You have this defined
> as a sub property of dc:creator (not dcterms I notice, and dc is missing
> from the table of namespaces). If there's a reason, OK, but dcterms:creator
> is pretty universal.
>
>
> duv:hasPublisher - again, why not dcterms:publisher?
>
> I can't find duv:hasProducer in the diagram but I see that it has a range
> of prov:Agent and skos:Concept. That seems to be confusing two things
> there. The producer will be an Agent that will have either a classification
> or a role of some kind. That seems similar to org:classification which
> takes a skos:Concept as its range.
>
> See just above
> http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/#index-of-classes-and-properties
>
> Googling around this topic I also came across
> http://rdf-vocabulary.ddialliance.org/discovery.html#dfn-disco-fundedby
> which seems very relevant, in particular a property fundedBy.
>
> duv:edition - looks like pav:version to me??
>
> duv:Publication - not foaf:Document??
>
> If you and the WG are ready to publish this as the next WD, I'm happy with
> that but I think one or more issues should be raised to help tie down where
> DUV terms differ from existing ones.
>
> HTH
>
> Phil.
>
> --
>
>
> Phil Archer
> W3C Data Activity Lead
> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1
>
>