Re: review of prov-dc

Hi Luc.
Thanks for your feedback. I will go and discuss it with the rest of the
authors, but
I can give you some initial comments about the main concerns (see below):

2012/11/23 Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

>
> 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.
>
Thanks!

>
> There are a couple of issues that I find problematic and need to be
> addressed.
>
>
> 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.
>
What you understood is not what we meant: we were referring to an activity
that used doc1 and then
generated doc1.  We will rephrase it accordingly.

>
> 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.
>
This was discussed in the group for a long time. The example that made us
propose the mapping was related to
changing a book in a catalog. The replacement could be unrelated to the
former book, so it is not a derivation,
specialization or alternate. The dc definition is quite broad in this
regard.

> 2.2 For dct:isVersionOf, I suggest below to look at an example in prov-dm.
>     THis looks like a subproperty of prov:specializationOf
>
As happened with the example before, the dc concept was quite broad. We
will revise the newer changes to
specialization to see if we can narrow the relationship

>
> 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.
>
Thanks, I will take a look on the images once again.

>
> With this addressed, I think it's good to go to FPWD.
>
> Cheers,
> Luc
>
Best,
Daniel
PS: Tracker, this is issue 602:
https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/602

>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**----------
>
>
>
> - 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
>
>   Write:
>
>    to the <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/**2012/WD-prov-dm-20120724/#dfn-**
> provenance <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:
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/**wiki/Diagrams<http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Diagrams>
> 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 <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?
>
> Cheers,
> Luc
>
> --
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~**lavm<http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm>
>
>
>