W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > June 2012

PROV-ISSUE-404 (Feedback_SS): Feedback on the mapping from Satya Sahoo [Mapping PROV-O to Dublin Core]

From: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 19:12:16 +0000
Message-Id: <E1SdR56-0003vP-Km@tibor.w3.org>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
PROV-ISSUE-404 (Feedback_SS): Feedback on the mapping from Satya Sahoo [Mapping PROV-O to Dublin Core]

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/404

Raised by: Daniel Garijo
On product: Mapping PROV-O to Dublin Core

A few comments that may be useful as starting points for further discussions/review :
1.  Many terms currently listed in the description metadata are also provenance-specific:
educationLevel (the qualification of person/agent is relevant provenance in appointments/promotions etc.)
license (why - type of license is relevant provenance for legal/contractual enforcement)
spatial (where - corresponds to prov:Location)
temporal (when - corresponds to xsd:DateTime)
isRequiredBy (why, who - relevant provenance for legal/contracts)
type (which - relevant provenance for all PROV type attribute)
language, format (what - provenance information for rendering)

Additional terms that describe provenance include accessRights (why - why is agent not liable for sharing object with given access rights), accrualPeriodicity (when)

2. Both rdfs:subPropertyOf and rdfs:subClassOf are specialization (of property and class respectively). Hence, both "Direct Mappings" and "PROV Specializations" can be merged into a single section of "Specialization"

3. The mechanism to reconcile blank nodes to a specific URI is not clear. Will it be done manually or automatically?
Received on Saturday, 9 June 2012 19:12:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:16 UTC