Re: dwbp-ISSUE-214: prov:Agent vs duv:Agent [Data Usage Vocabulary]

Hi Eric,

I would exclude foaf:Project altogether.  It is still in status ³testing² in
foaf, and it¹s not particularly relevant for data usage to make that
distinction. So, I¹d just exclude foaf:Project from the scope and use

There is a separate issue of whether we need to create duv:Agent. I¹d say we
DO NOT need to create duv:Agent, because we only use prov:Agent as range of
properties in the DUV. (And prov:Agent is general enough and established in
a well-defined W3C recommendation, and by the way it is equivalent to
dct:Agent, see .)

By the way, the diagram in the current DUV version includes prov:Agent
twice. This should be fixed for clarity.

Joćo Paulo

From:  Eric Stephan <>
Date:  Friday, November 20, 2015 at 11:06 AM
To:  Joćo Paulo Almeida <>
Cc:  Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group <>
Subject:  Re: dwbp-ISSUE-214: prov:Agent vs duv:Agent [Data Usage

Joćo Paulo,

Thank you for your question.  You are correct that foaf:Project is not a
prov:Agent in the vocabulary.  In citations an Agent to include project,
organization, or person can designated as the publisher, distributor, or
producer.  My question is because prov:Agent does not specify foaf:Project
as an agent, should I use prov:Agent or should I create duv:Agent (that I
guess could be a subclass of prov:Agent?)

What do you think?



On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 4:56 AM, Joćo Paulo Almeida <>
> Dear Eric,
> Would you please clarify the issue?
> As far as I am aware, foaf:Project is not a subclass of prov:Agent.
> Regards,
> Joćo Paulo
> On 20/11/15, 9:40 AM, "Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Issue
> Tracker" < <> > wrote:
>> >dwbp-ISSUE-214: prov:Agent vs duv:Agent [Data Usage Vocabulary]
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Raised by: Eric Stephan
>> >On product: Data Usage Vocabulary
>> >
>> >Data vocabulary reuse question: In the citation model, is it better to
>> >use prov:Agent that is a superclass to new classes such as foaf:Project
>> >or should we create a new class duv:Agent?
>> >
>> >
>> >

Received on Friday, 20 November 2015 13:24:25 UTC