W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > February 2016

Re: Review of example data in BP8 and BP9

From: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:17:54 -0800
To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <56D0A4E2.4020500@lbl.gov>
Thanks for looking at this, Antoine! This is a way more useful review 
than I could have done.

On 2/26/16 9:27 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> Today I got an action dwbp-ACTION-236: Review the vocabulary aspects 
> of bp9
> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/236
> Actually I've done a bit more, i.e. check for both BP8 and BP9 at
> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#VersioningInfo
> because the example of one very much builds on the example of the 
> other, and the issues I've spotted apply to both.
> I'm also extending my feedback as a general feedback on the data that 
> is in the example, i.e. how the vocabularies are used.
> 1. The namespaces MUST be documented somewhere, either at level of 
> individual BPs or the whole BP document.
> Where are these elements coming from?
> PAV refered is refered in BP8 (but not BP9 btw)
> I cannot be sure where version:VersionedThing is coming from...
> 2. version:VersionedThing is probably useless, and maybe even harmful.
> What counts in the example is the concrete versioning statements in 
> the description, not the fact that something is declared as versioned. 
> Everything is potentially a versioned thing, I don't like our BPs to 
> make recommendation that would be suggesting extra statement on every 
> dataset for little added value. The BP can live very well without it.
> It's a bit like prov:Entity. I actually dislike it a lot, because it 
> doesn't say anything on the typed resource. But I can see more reasons 
> to keep it.
> There's also some apparent problem in the way it's used. timetable-001 
> is an instance of version:VersionedThing, and timetable-002 is an 
> instance of version:Version? How come, given that both resources seem 
> quite analogous?
> Given that there is uncertainty on the provenance of this class (see 
> point 1), I would strongly argue to remove all this altogether.
> 3. OWL has owl:versionInfo, which should be used instead of pav:version.
> I think I like using several properties from PAV, but the OWL 
> namespace is more 'W3C-official' than the PAV one.
> And BP8 mentions explicitly OWL as a source of annotation properties 
> for versioning (but then it uses none in the example!)
> 4. The dates are the same for dct:issued and dct:modified. This is not 
> wrong data: it actually occurs a lot. But for an example in a section 
> on time versioning, it kind of misses its point and may confuse readers.
> 5. Because I still don't know what version:currentVersion really is, 
> I'd recommend to use something else. Or nothing: the fact that you've 
> used a pav:previousVersion statement from timetable-002 to 
> timetable-001 already gives one the version sequence one needs. 
> Relying only on one direction may seem counter-intuitive: to know 
> whether something is deprecated, one has to query for whether there is 
> another resource that points to it with pav:previousVersion. But in 
> fact the complexity of the querying is exactly the same, and there are 
> advantages:
> - fewer statements in the data
> - monotonicity: the statements for timetable-001 don't change
> (note that this versioning pattern is the one of the W3C documents!)
> Now there's another question about this: whether to use 
> pav:previousVersion or a Dublin Core property, dct:isVersionOf. The 
> definition of pav:previousVersion is semantically more precise, 
> because it links to the version that directly precedes the version 
> being described. while dct:isVersionOf can link to any earlier 
> version. But I expect that in practice dct:isVersionOf will point only 
> to the one previous version. And DC is an official standard, while PAV 
> is not (yet?).
> Finally a couple of editorial comments:
> - there are many spaces missing in the data, e.g. 
> "dct:publisher:transport-agency-mycity ;"
> - I'm missing something in the sentence that finishes with " doesn't 
> exist on the timetable-001.". Like, something that defines what 
> timetable-001 is - as the wording assumes the reader is already 
> familiar with it.
> I hope this helps,
> Antoine

Annette Greiner
NERSC Data and Analytics Services
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Received on Friday, 26 February 2016 19:18:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:44 UTC