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

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

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 21:14:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CAExK0DdvqkL4jw0569v=VbFO4m4f5MwEA3n_BbNuJDCAaPvAvQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kai Eckert <kai@informatik.uni-mannheim.de>
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Kai,
I have added Antoine's feedback as Issue 405.

Best,
Daniel

2012/6/8 Kai Eckert <kai@informatik.uni-mannheim.de>

> Hi all,
>
> here is feedback from Antoine Isaac regarding the Dublin Core mapping.
> Unfortunately I was not able to work on the mapping this week, I will get
> back to it next week.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kai
>
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Betreff: Fwd: Re: Dublin Core - PROV Mapping, Call for Feedback (until
> June 5th)
> Datum: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 11:56:12 +0200
> Von: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
> An: Kai Eckert <kai@informatik.uni-mannheim.**de<kai@informatik.uni-mannheim.de>>,
> "Panzer,Michael" <panzerm@oclc.org>
>
> Hi Kai, Michael,
>
> Something that I've forgotten to state in my hurry. Or course the only
> document I've really reviewed carefully is the Primer. Especially, I did
> not check the complex mapping document. I think for the Direct Mapping and
> the PROV specialization, this is less a problem---they're much shorter, and
> my comments on the corresponding sections in the Primer would apply to the
> content of these two documents, as well...
>
> I sincerely hope these late comments won't be a problem for you,
>
> Antoine
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Dublin Core - PROV Mapping, Call for Feedback (until June 5th)
> Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 11:50:47 +0200
> From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@FEW.VU.NL>
> Reply-To: DCMI Architecture Forum <DC-ARCHITECTURE@JISCMAIL.AC.**UK<DC-ARCHITECTURE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
> >
> To: <DC-ARCHITECTURE@JISCMAIL.AC.**UK <DC-ARCHITECTURE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>>
>
> Hi Kai, Daniel, Michael and Simon,
>
> Thanks a lot for the work on this. In fact I found it a great help for an
> outsider (from the Dublin Core community) to have a first glance into the
> work of the PROV working group.
>
> I have some comments that I'm hastily putting together below. Please
> apologize if it's unclear sometimes, and of course sorry for the late
> feedback. You just gave one week... hopefully it's still June 5 somewhere
> on Earth.
>
> Best,
>
> Antoine
>
>
> ====== PROV reference
>
> It seems that you are using really "fresh" documents from the PROV working
> group. E.g. the property prov:generatedAtTime can be found in
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/**raw-file/default/ontology/**Overview.html<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/Overview.html>
> but not in the latest official working draft
> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/
> Putting the reference to the latest draft in your docs could be handy!
>
> ====== Dublin Core as a Simple Provenance Vocabulary
>
> I'm uncomfortable with the strict categorization of elements into
> "descriptive" and "provenance" metadata. Some elements are questionable to
> belong to one or the other. You've addressed already many doubts, but maybe
> you should acknowledge that you categorization is not "hard" or if it is,
> give more rationale for the questionable elements...
> My personal list:
> - hasPart, isPartOf: Perhaps isPartOf has indeed often a provenance
> flavor, especially when it's used from one element of a collection to that
> collection. But I'd argue many of their uses can be descriptive, especially
> hasPart. Unless you consider a mereological description of objects (typical
> example of a car having wheels) to be always about provenance?
> - conformsTo, rights and accessRights may reflect provenance info (though
> it is "derived")
> - accrual properties: I wonder whether all should be in (accrualPolicy
> seems interesting for provenance) or out (accrualMethod could be
> questioned). But a mixed position seems strange.
>
> By the way method-wise, should there be strict correspondence between the
> elements in the "provenance" category and the ones that are mapped to a
> PROV element in the direct mapping?
> What does it say on an a given element, if it's in the "provenance"
> category but is not mapped to PROV?
>
> Other comment:
> [
> It can be questioned if a resource changes by being published, however, we
> consider the publication as an action that affects the state of the
> resource and therefore it is relevant for the provenance.
> ]
> -> if provenance is about "where does an object come from", then this one
> is a no-brainer!
>
>
> ====== Basic considerations
>
> [
> if a specialization of a document is generated by one activity and a
> specialization is used by a different activity later in time,
> ]
> -> What does "specialization" mean, in practice? I know that it is a
> notion from PROV, but the word is highly ambiguous, a Primer would benefit
> from some (short) explanation here.
>
> By the way yourself are using "specialization" for something else (the
> extension of PROV for handling DC "nuances").
>
> ====== What is ex:doc1?
>
> [
> it is semantically incorrect to have several activities that all generate
> the same entity at different points in time.
> ]
> -> Please cite the PROV context explicitly here!
> Many people (I'd expect most) will gladly accept that several activities
> contribute to the realization of one same resource. Even in a FRBR or
> CIDOC-CRM context, which are already seen as (too) fine-grained models by
> many.
> By the way, I think later you try indeed to relate to simpler approaches,
> so that must mean you thing it is *not* semantically incorrect ;-)
>
> ====== Direct mappings
>
> dct:date rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:generatedAtTime .
> seems dubious. dct:valid is a sub-property of dct:date, which means that
> it is also a sub-property of prov:generatedAtTime. You correctly represent
> this in the mapping document, btw. But I'm quite sure this relation does
> not hold in absolute.
>
> dct:rightsHolder rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:wasAttributedTo .
> This also seems strange at first sight. Looking at the definition for
> dct:rightsHolder:
> "A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource."
> This may include some institution who manages/stores a resource on behalf
> of its creator, or anyone who "owns" the resource.
> I think is compatible with PROV's super-vague meaning of attribution
> ("Attribution is the ascribing of an entity to an agent.",
> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/)**. But that's quite a stretch from what
> many Dublin Core readers will understand for "attribution". Perhaps you
> could give some explanation!
>
> ======= PROV Specializations (and rationale for complex mappings)
>
> The constructs introduced and their mapping to PROV seem ok.
> But I think you could say one sentence about the rationale of these
> specializations. I understand the need to "properly reflect the meaning of
> the Dublin Core terms". Yet, do we need to go for a solution that result in
> having the complexity of patterns of PROV next to the semantic distinctions
> made in DC? We could as well just keep the granularity of DC, in terms of
> patterns. I.e., using the simple mappings between DC properties and the
> related "short-cut properties" in the PROV patterns (e.g.,
> prov:wasAttributedTo).
>
> This of course relates for the rationale for having complex mappings in
> the first step. There are several options that PROV offers, in terms of
> granularity. Especially, having more or less fine distinctions for linking
> agents to entities. For a same "creation data" PROV can represent direct
> links between persons and created resource (prov:wasAttributedTo), links
> between persons and resources via Activity (prov:wasAssociatedWith) and
> links between persons and Activity via Roles.
>
> Having all of these levels of granularity at once is probably more harmful
> than beneficial, given the complexity of the PROV pattern in general
> (especially with "specializations"!). Or are the complex mappings just an
> *option* you provide? If yes, a small paragraph elaborating on this would
> be useful for your primer. In fact, it may be enough to gather some
> sentences you already have scattered in different sections.
>
> ======= Complex mappings, Stage 1
>
> [
> A lot of blank nodes are created, however, keep in mind that we envision a
> second stage that relates them and provides stable URIs for the entities.
> ]
> -> Everyone won't be ready to create and maintain URIs for all the
> entity/activity/role splitting in the PROV pattern, certainly. What is the
> application scenario for this? I guess it would depend. So maybe at this
> stage it's safer to say that some applications would create URIs, some
> would keep to blank nodes. And of course many others won't use the more
> complex mappings.
>
> Other comments:
>
> - I don't get why you opted for a simpler mapping pattern for
> "Entity/Entity (How)". It's quite equivalent to the sub-property mappings
> you have in the "Direct mappings" sections. According to the PROV model,
> for a simple "version" link you can create one or several creation
> activities, as well as half a dozen of "in" and "out" views/specializations
> of the document, which play each a different role in these activities.
> I understand you would want a simple mapping (so do I) but in this Primer
> perhaps you should make a bit clearer reference on why you made that choice
> here, as opposed to the more complex mappings that are listed before this
> one.
>
> - Is Prov:Entity provided with any specific semantics? If not, then
> perhaps you can remove the explicit rdf:type that links to it. That would
> make the example graphs simpler.
>
>
> ====== Conflating PROV specializations
>
> I understand that the stage 2 of the complex mapping will "merge" a lot of
> the "ins" and "outs" nodes of individual activities. This should already a
> progress compared to the extreme atomization that is currently carried out.
> I'm looking forward to seeing the details!
>
> However, it seems this will still result in one entity being specialized
> into at least as many "versions" as there will be activities. I expect many
> in our community will just hate having that. In fact that could be smartly
> related to modeling distinctions such as the ones made in FRBR.
> But then (or even without it) we run into the kind of problems denounced
> here: http://blogs.ecs.soton.ac.uk/**webteam/2010/09/02/the-**modeler/<http://blogs.ecs.soton.ac.uk/webteam/2010/09/02/the-modeler/>;-)
>
> In this respect, it would be a good idea to at least make these
> specialization distinctions *optional*. Is it really not possible to have
> several activities carried out on a single instance of entity, say, the
> ex:doc1 in your example?
>
>
> ======= [end]
>
>
>  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.
>>
>> Daniel will briefly present the current state in the PROV call tomorrow.
>> 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>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 9 June 2012 19:15:29 UTC

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