W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > January 2013

Re: PAV (was Re: Review of future/core.html)

From: Herbert van de Sompel <hvdsomp@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:05:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOywMHd6JfvCZiTaky0Yogs6E1bK4KQzqurC-fguoUZKpm21Mg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-openannotation@w3.org
Stian, all,

I think what you are describing is rather similar to the direction
that the new, 2-level, bibliographic framework that is being devised
by the Library of Congress is taking. See a recent presentation by
Erik Miller at http://www.niso.org/news/events/2013/dcmi/bibframework


On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
<soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> --- this is getting off topic, but it's good to hear there is interest!
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>> Without even criticizing the model a single second, I see indeed
>> distinctions like "digital resource", "digital artifact", etc. I've fought
>> with these for too long in my domain, and I can see cans of worms flashing
>> around and long reading and discussions coming...
> Yes, that is a big can of worm, not too dissimilar from the HTTP Range
> 14 discussions (about resources and their representations being the
> same 'thing' or not).
> In PAV we simply try to say that authorship/contribution has to do
> with the knowledge or content that is represented ("IP" if you like,
> although I hate the term), and "creation" has to do with making the
> digital form this take (not necessarily the exact representation like
> RDF/XML vs Turtle). How this split is realized, if at all, is domain
> and application specific.
> For instance it's quite straight forward for a Word document where I
> typed in a chapter from Lord of the Rings, then that word document was
> pav:authoredBy  J. R. R. Tolkien and pav:createdBy Stian, and it was
> pav:createdWith Word. In PROV terms, you can think of authorship as
> something that belongs to a more general, abstract entity that the
> "digital resource"  is a prov:specializationOf.
> Similarly for annotations, if I take the author's handwritten notes in
> the original Lord of the Rings manuscript and formalize them as
> oa:Annotation's, then those annotations are pav:authoredBy :Tolkien
> and pav:createdBy :Stian.
> However this gets trickier the moment the knowledge itself is a
> digital thing rather than something which is merely represented with
> digital concepts; for instance an ontological model, an RDF dataset, a
> spreadsheet that calculates mortgage payments. For simple cases the
> creator and author is just the same person, so there is no problem,
> and you might want to only represent one of those.
> The distinction can come into play when one talks about
> transformations of formats and similar, which PAV provides more
> specialized terms for, like pav:importedFrom and pav:importedBy.  So
> if you made the spreadsheet in excel and I just copy it and put it on
> my website, then you are still both the author and creator, and I mark
> the provenance to the orginal using pav:retrievedFrom and my role
> using pav:retrievedBy.
> If I then saved it in OpenOffice format, then you are still the author
> of my OO spreadsheet, while I am now the creator. (as here I consider
> the workings of the spreadsheet as the 'knowledge'). retrievedFrom
> changes to importedFrom. However if I also needed to fix a formula in
> the spreadsheet to make it work in Open Office, then I also become a
> curator  (pav:curatedBy).
> ( In a different domain it could be that a spreadsheet contains survey
> data imported from a CSV which was extracted from a survey database ;
> here the authorship relates to the survey data, while creation might
> deals with making it into a tabular format, no matter if it has been
> converted from CSV to XLS.)
> If I add a bit of new functionality, then I am a contributor
> (pav:contributedBy), and the OO spreadsheet is now just
> pav:derivedFrom the original rather than imported from it. If that
> functionality is "significant", then I would now also be an author. If
> your bit is superseded by my 3d version, then now you remain only as
> an author of the spreadsheet that my spreadsheet was pav:derivedFrom.
> .. and with that I think I explained almost the whole model... *copy to paper*.
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester

Herbert Van de Sompel
Digital Library Research & Prototyping
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Library

Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 00:05:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:38:21 UTC