- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:43:17 +0200
- To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
On 9/10/13 7:55 AM, Vladimir Alexiev wrote: >> I like the differentiation between delta and history > > Yes. > And this could be attached to various KOS entities: Concepts, Labels (in various languages), Notes and Definitions (in various languages), Relations (semantic or mapping relations). > > Examples of revision history actions for Concepts may include: create, update, delete, undelete, merge... > Examples of editorial workflow actions for Concepts may include: propose, accept, reject, publish... > Actions for relations may include add, delete, update (e.g. move a concept in the hierarchy)... > > In addition to Delta and History, two other Provenance aspects are: > - basic DCT information: created, modified, issued, valid... > - Sources and contributors of a KOS entity > > Has anyone researched approaches for standardizing the above? I'd first look at PROV... > At the higher-level (ie. not the one of tools, which was the focus of this thread at the beginning) there are many papers on gathering the types of changes you describe: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/SKOS/Issues/ConceptEvolution has some. But no standardization that I know... Cheers, Antoine
Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2013 07:43:49 UTC