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

RE: PROV-ISSUE-402 (Feedback_SM): Feedback on the feedback from Simon Miles [Mapping PROV-O to Dublin Core]

From: Miles, Simon <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:55:51 +0100
To: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <830EEE5C741ED54EAB28EBACFFC77984EEBA8044BE@KCL-MAIL04.kclad.ds.kcl.ac.uk>
Hi Daniel,

Yes, thanks, I will close the issue as this concerned a much earlier version of the note. If I have further comments to raise, I will open a new issue.


Dr Simon Miles
Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166

Automatically Adapting Source Code to Document Provenance:

From: dgarijov@gmail.com [dgarijov@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Garijo [dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es]
Sent: 22 October 2012 18:24
To: Miles, Simon; Provenance Working Group
Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-402 (Feedback_SM): Feedback on the feedback from Simon Miles [Mapping PROV-O to Dublin Core]

Hi Simon,
as you already know, your feedback and comments were included in the
version of the DC note we released in July. This issue is still pending review,
so I would like to know if any of the points you were raising still apply.

Can we close this issue?


PS: My fault for not detecting this before.

2012/6/9 Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org<mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org>>
PROV-ISSUE-402 (Feedback_SM): Feedback on the feedback from Simon Miles [Mapping PROV-O to Dublin Core]


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

Hello Daniel, Kai, Michael,

I've read through the DC-PROV mapping documents, and have a few comments (mostly regarding the primer, as this is the substantial document so far). At this stage, my feedback is just comment without much constructive on how to address those comments, but I am happy to help do so.

The primer is very good, and the first few sections in particular sets out the issues clearly and helpfully.

I found that the sections from "What is ex:doc1" onwards referred a bit too much to the technical details of the mapping. I think we could introduce the key issues at a higher level first.

The documents seem to assume that we are mapping DC RDF to PROV-O (rather than DC to PROV more generally), but I didn't see this explained anywhere.

Many points (such as the questions at the end of "What is ex:doc1") would benefit from a running example to make the ideas concrete.

I think it would help clarity to come up with more descriptive names than "Stage 1" and "Stage 2".

As it's a draft, there are clearly some explanations missing, and so I note some points that need to be clarified:

 - In "What is ex:doc1", option 1: why are the mappings potentially bloated? Needs higher level explanation.

 - In option 2, why are the PROV semantics unclear? I wasn't clear what you were trying to say.

 - What is the connection of the dc:publisher figure (which needs explanation itself) to the text?
 - Are "PROV Specializations" the same as "specializationOf" in PROV? I didn't see the connection, and if there is no connection we should not use the term.

I have to think through all the proposed mappings. Some direct mappings seem maybe not intuitive. I believe that PROV aims to cover a smaller area than DC (i.e. only provenance) but more generally (i.e. any kind of past occurrence). Therefore, I would not expect PROV terms to usually be subclasses of DC terms.

For example, I don't think wasRevisionOf is intended to be more specific than isVersionOf, even if under certain readings of the words "revision" and "version" this might be intuitive (also, I remember debating whether isVersionOf actually links different versions of a resource, or links a version of a resource to the general document).
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 15:00:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:24 UTC