- From: makxdekkers via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 14:12:15 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@janvoskuil I see your point, but there is some subjectivity there. For example, you state that "_associated with_ -- or _to_ as the definition says -- _means direct involvement_". I do not fully agree with that implication. The PROV definition keeps the activity at arms-length from the agent -- there was some activity but we may not know what it was, which is in some way which we may not know or care about, associated to the agent. In my mind, there might be different cases: I would argue that funders, custodians and collectors do have clear roles and responsibilities associated to a resource for which attribution could be a reasonable relationship. "Dedicatee" would indeed be more of a stretch, but then, how many datasets would be dedicated to someone? So I think that some of the MARC relators could be modelled as attribution roles, but maybe not all. -- GitHub Notification of comment by makxdekkers Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1521#issuecomment-1153971695 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 13 June 2022 14:12:17 UTC