- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 12:24:12 +0000
- To: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
- CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|8aded9c45428d8ed348d3df58f9b5a04oAMCOE08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|50AF6AEC>
Hi Daniel, Responding to your comments. On 11/23/2012 10:54 AM, Daniel Garijo wrote: > 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 > <mailto: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. What I understood is what your provenance graph shows. Figure 2 does not make explicit "used then generated". > > 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. Derivation does not require the subject and object to be the "same resource". A cake was derived from flour. Thanks, Luc > 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">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 > 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? > > Cheers, > Luc > > -- > Professor Luc Moreau > Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 > <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%204487> > University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 > <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865> > Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk > <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> > United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm > <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm> > > > -- 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
Received on Friday, 23 November 2012 12:26:51 UTC