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

PROV-ISSUE-602 (Luc's FB DC Note): Luc's Feedback on the DC-Note [Mapping PROV-O to Dublin Core]

From: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 10:54:09 +0000
Message-Id: <E1Tbqtd-0007Nc-F1@nelson.w3.org>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
PROV-ISSUE-602 (Luc's FB DC Note): Luc's Feedback on the DC-Note [Mapping PROV-O to Dublin Core]


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

Hi Kai and Daniel,

I like the document, because it is providing interesting connections
between the two ontologies.  And for this, it is useful, and we should
publish it.

There are a couple of issues that I find problematic and need to be

1. I don't think that what you say about prov-constraints is correct.
   The example of Figure 2 is perfectly valid.  The activity generated
   doc1, and *then* used ex:doc1.  That's probably not what you want to express here,
   and so the text needs to be rewritten to reflect that.

2. A couple of issues about the mapping:
2.1 It's unfortunate that you map dct:replaces to prov:wasInfluencedBy.
    PROV specs suggest to use more specific relations.
2.2 For dct:isVersionOf, I suggest below to look at an example in prov-dm.
    THis looks like a subproperty of prov:specializationOf

3. I am really keen we adopt the layout conventions for graphs. In particular,
   Figure 1 does not follow it.
   Since you seem to adopt the top down layout,
   I also suggest that the activity should appear above the entity ex:doc1 in  Figure 2.

With this addressed, I think it's good to go to FPWD.



- this more specific vocabulary is called the *TERMS*
  I don't understand what you mean? 'Metadata Terms'

-  "Finally, dct:replaces relates the document to another document ex:doc2 which had probably some kind of influence on ex:doc1."
   Why don't you say wasRevisionOf?

- to the definition of the  Provenance Working Group [PROV-DEF] a


   to the <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-dm-20120724/#dfn-provenance">definition of provenance</a> of the PROV Working Group [PROV-DM]

- Description metadat: alternative??? Has it anything to do with prov:alternate?

- It is convervative classification?
  In what way is it conservative. You seem to indicate that others elements
  could still be classified as provenance. May be you mean minimalistic?

- "The original resource becomes part of the provenance record of the
  derived resource. "  I don't think it's what you mean.
  May be you wan to say
  "The DESCRIPTION of the original resource becomes part of the provenance
   record of the derive resource".

- section 2.1: I was getting confused : which one is source, which one is target?

- The layout of the diagram should follow the conventions in:
In particular, the directionality of edges is crucial.

- section 2.2: replace " is not compliant with the PROV constraints"

  Why is not compliant? you mean not valid, yes?  I think
  this is a valid graph, which states that ex:doc1 was generated by
  activity, and *then* used by the same activity.  It is valid
  according to prov-constraints.  It may not be what you want to say.

- Figure 2: IN caption: If figure is invalid, state it in the caption.

- table 3: add links to definitions of dc terms and prov terms.

- table 3: agent: which then has responsibility for an activity,
  ... and entities and other agents

- table 3: "The rights holder has the attribution of the activity that created the licensed resource." ... strange to talk about activity, since prov:wasAttributedTo does not have an activity.

- table 3: likewise: "He is the one involved in the creation activity that led to the resource. He has the attribution for that activity"

  why *the one*?  he is an agent involved ... (there may be others).

- table3 : same issue for publishe and contributer.
   It is strage to read " he is attributed to take part in those activities".
    Either you should said "he is associated with those activities" or "this entity is attributed to this agent".

- "dct:replaces    rdfs:subPropertyOf    prov:wasInfluencedBy This mapping is not straightforward. There is a relation between two resources when the former replaces the latter, but it is not necessarily derivation, revision, specification or alternate. Thus, the term is mapped to prov:wasInfluencedBy"

 It's unclear why the mapping is not straightforward. In any case, the document should not say it.  I am unclear why it is not necessarily a derivation/revision.

It's kind of anoying that this is mapped to influence, since we say it's better to use more specific relations.  What's wrong with derivation/revision?

specification ---> specialization?

- dct:issued ... ". It is mapped as a subproperty " What is mapped? grammatically, it is the date, but this doesn't seem to work.

- It's difficult to understand the text for mapping of dates

-  "it is supported by PROV and it is due to the difference between Dublin Core and PROV resources" ->
   it is supported by PROV and it is due to the difference between Dublin Core RESOURCES and PROV ENTITIES:

- it does not comply with all the PROV constraints
  See note above, I think it implies something different.

- table 4, second row:
- Similar to the previous property??? what do you mean?

- "prov:wasRevisionOf is more restrictive in the sense that it refers to revised version of a resource, while dct:isVersionOf involves versions, editions or adaptations of the original resource." I don't understand what you mean.

YOu may want to look at http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#anexample-alternate2
Wouldn't you say that

tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215 dct:isVersionOf <http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/>

So, this looks like a specialization?

- section 2.4: naming conversion for prov:PublicationActivity should
  be reconsidered.
  Why not prov:Publish?

- What happens if a same entity has both dc:created and dct:issued. Can you relate the Creation and Publication activities ?

- Section 2.5.3, clean up solution 2)
 Does Dublin Core make assumptions about dates? Are they all the same clock, or all synchronized? If not, then we can't order by date.

 In fact, isn't there a logical order, where creation takes place before publication?

Received on Friday, 23 November 2012 10:54:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 23 November 2012 10:54:10 GMT