comments on the DUV

Dear Eric, Sumit and Bernadette,

Thank you very much for the work you are doing on the DUV.

Here does some comments on the current version of the DUV document, which I
hope can improve it.

‹ Concerning the current diagram
----------------------------------------------
Rdfs:literal appears three times in the diagram.
Skos:Concept also appears three times
oa:Annotation appears two times.
foaf:Agent appears twice.

To me, this should be avoided, because it is counter-intuitive.

I still find it very confusing that some properties appear in the diagram
and not in the text and also vice-versa. I think that the diagram should be
in full sync with the text. This is useful as an overview of the vocabulary.

‹ Concerning the scope of the vocabulary
-------------------------------------------
I do not see conceptually, how duv:hasDistributor and duv:recordCreator are
in the scope of DUV.   There was not text for duv:recordCreator, so what is
this property used for? How different is it from dct:creator, which is also
used?

Same for duv:classification. This seems to be used to classify foaf:Agents
using skos, Š How is this in scope of DUV?

‹ Concerning the descriptions of the concepts
-------------------------------------------

I did not understand duv:UsageTool. Why is this needed? The description is
cryptic to me. It says ³A synopsis describing the way a tool can use a
dataset or distribution.² A tool is not a synopsis. So, this seems to
confuse real-world entity (a tool) with a text, a description?

duv:RatingFeedback is described as ³predefined criteria². But we do not
define these criteria in DUV. So, ³predefined² is a bit vague to me. When
are the criteria defined? By the way, I disagree with defining
RatingFeedback as ³criteria². A criterion is ³a principle or standard by
which something may be judged or decided². So, someone creating an instance
of RatingFeedback may USE some predefined criteria, but the feedback itself
if not a criteria. Remember that this is a subclass of Annotation, so a
Feedback is just an annotation.

‹ Concerning dependencies with other vocabularies
-------------------------------------------

I find that many dependencies to other vocabularies have been created in the
DUV, which makes it hard for people to use it without ³buying in² these
other vocabularies. Some of these dependencies in my view could be separated
into a section that only indicates that the user could consider using these
other vocabularies to express some additional informationŠ An example is
disco:fundedBy. This is a single property from disco, that creates a
dependency between DUV and disco. Same for PRISM (with
prism:publicationDate) and PAV (with pav:Version). I would recommend that
all these be factored out from the  ³core part² of DUV.

In section 7.4 there is a rev vocabulary dependency (rev:Feedback). What is
the status of this vocabulary? Again, I think we should avoid these
dependencies as much as possible, especially if the status of the referred
vocabularies is unclear.


Regards,
João Paulo


A minor typo:
dct:Identifier should be dct:identifier