Re: Dublin Core - PROV Mapping, Call for Feedback (until June 5th)

Thanks Satya,
this is issue 404.

Best,
Daniel

2012/6/7 Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>

> Hi Kai and Daniel,
> I found the mapping to be very helpful especially in terms of using the
> construct function to implement the complex mappings.
>
> 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?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best,
> Satya
>
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Daniel Garijo <
> dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> in the Dublin Core Metada Provenance Task Group (with the help of Simon
>> Miles), we have released an initial DC to PROV mapping draft.
>>
>> The work has been divided in several documents to improve readability:
>>
>> - The mapping primer [1] explains the process followed to do the mapping,
>> the main rationale of our decisions and our next steps.
>>
>> - The Direct Mappings document [2] shows the direct mappings found
>> between DC and PROV (e.g., subPropertyOf relations).
>>
>> - The PROV Specializations document [3] extends PROV-O with some basic
>> roles and properties to be able to perform the complex mappings.
>>
>> - Finally, the Complex-Mappings document [4] infers PROV statements from
>> DC statements that are not covered by the direct mappings.
>>
>> Please give us your feedback on our approach and the documents within one
>> week (until Tuesday, June 5th).
>>
>> We sent this mail both to the relevant DCMI mailinglists and the PROV
>> mailinglist in order to reach consensus.
>>
>> We are on a quite strict timetable now and aim at finishing the mapping
>> (Stage 2, and the mapping back from PROV to DC) until end of June to reach
>> the state of a public draft.
>>
>> If you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to contact
>> us.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kai, Daniel, Michael and Simon.
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/dcmi/DC-**PROV-Mapping/wiki/Mapping-**primer<https://github.com/dcmi/DC-PROV-Mapping/wiki/Mapping-primer>
>> [2] https://github.com/dcmi/DC-**PROV-Mapping/wiki/Direct-**Mappings<https://github.com/dcmi/DC-PROV-Mapping/wiki/Direct-Mappings>
>> [3] https://github.com/dcmi/DC-**PROV-Mapping/wiki/Prov-**Specializations<https://github.com/dcmi/DC-PROV-Mapping/wiki/Prov-Specializations>
>> [4] https://github.com/dcmi/DC-**PROV-Mapping/wiki/Complex-**Mappings-S1<https://github.com/dcmi/DC-PROV-Mapping/wiki/Complex-Mappings-S1>
>>
>>
>>
>