- From: Jim McCusker <mccusker@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:41:13 -0500
- To: "vladimir.alexiev@ontotext.com" <vladimir.alexiev@ontotext.com>
- Cc: "public-esw-thes@w3.org" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 20 January 2014 16:42:01 UTC
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Vladimir Alexiev < vladimir.alexiev@ontotext.com> wrote: > > I'm curious what your objections are to the PROV approach. > > PROV is not intended to describe bibliographic info; e.g. how do I state > "page range" in PROV? > I see. Actually, my main suggestion was how to identify the collections as they change through time - the members of those collections change, so you need to represent the different versions as you go. PROV is not an answer for everything, but can be a very valuable, practical upper level ontology. > Or, let me turn the question around: > what are your objections for using BIBO or FRBRoo for describing > provenance? > None whatsoever, especially since I helped integrate vocab.org/frbr/coreand PROV (see http://tw.rpi.edu/web/doc/parallelIdentitiesOGD and http://tw.rpi.edu/web/doc/mccusker2012ipaw). Most things that you might say in FRBR can be inferred into PROV. Jim -- Jim McCusker Data Scientist 5AM Solutions jmccusker@5amsolutions.com http://5amsolutions.com PhD Student Tetherless World Constellation Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute mccusj@cs.rpi.edu http://tw.rpi.edu
Received on Monday, 20 January 2014 16:42:01 UTC