W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > April 2013

Re: Prov-DC ready for review

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 15:15:18 +0200
Message-ID: <CAExK0DdaYVHL3h6cQwzdEuDZqD0nn2_MP-BP8ZWdTd6=npR9Gg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Cc: "<public-prov-wg@w3.org>" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Paul,
I have added your proposed edits. Issue 657 is now pending review.
Regarding section 3.2, I have changed it to be:
"In order to produce complex mappings for the DC terms, we need specific
subclasses extending the PROV ontology. These subclases are designed to
qualify the DC properties in the complex mappings. For example, a
dc:publisher relationship implies a "Publish" activity which used some
entity to be published, produced a published entity and was associated with
a publisher. The PROV extensions for Dublin Core can be seen below: "

And, after the refinements, I've changed the text to be:
"Additional refinements of the PROV properties have been ommitted, since
the direct mappings presented in Section 3.1 already define the
relationship between both vocabularies."
Best,
Daniel


2013/4/3 Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>

> Thanks Paul.
> I've created an issue and will deal with it as soon as I can.
> Best,
> Daniel
>
>
> 2013/4/3 Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
>
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> Thanks for the update to this document. My review is below. I think it's
>> a good document.
>>
>> Regards
>> Paul
>>
>> ==Review of PROV-DC==
>> Abstract
>>
>> - "the resource" --> "a resource"
>> - I don't know what " Translating these terms to PROV makes the contained
>> provenance information explicit within a provenance chain" means?
>> - can you replace "provenance chain" with provenance? I don't know what
>> provenance chain buys as a term
>>
>> Section 1.2
>> - "interested on" --> "interested in"
>> - "community discussions" --> "community discussion"
>> - maybe replace "Some terms may have misleading names …" with "Some terms
>> may imply a mapping (e.g. …), but do not in fact correspond.
>>
>> Section 2.1
>> - "DCMI terms hold a lot of " ---> "Many DCMI terms can be used to
>> describe provenance information about a resource:"
>>
>> Section 2.2
>> - "Since we cannot ensure that the published resource has not suffered…"
>> --> …has not gone through…
>>
>> - "it has been chosen as guideline in the complex mapping" --> "it has
>> been chosen as the approach for the complex mapping defined in this
>> document."
>>
>> Section 3.1
>>
>> - dct:Creator - "He has the attribution for the outcome of that
>> activity." --> "They have the attribution…'
>>
>> - dct:contributor - comma after Therefore
>>
>> - dct:isFormatOf - comma after Thus
>>
>> - dot:references - comma after In PROV
>>
>> Section 3.2
>> - You should say why you introduce these? I think it's for the Complex
>> Mappings is that correct?
>> - You say these are properties but they are actually classes in the last
>> paragraph of the section? why?
>>
>> Section 3.4
>> - It's not a list of possibilities - you provide two
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Daniel Garijo <
>> dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote:
>>
>>>  Hi all, I have staged the note for review here:
>>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/dc-note/releases/NOTE-prov-dc-20130430/Overview.html
>>>
>>>  The main changes since the last WD have been:
>>>
>>>    - Added the mapping between has_provenance and dct:provenance (and
>>>    dct:ProvenanceStatement and prov:Bundle)
>>>    - Changed dct:references as a type of derivation.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
>> Assistant Professor
>> - Web & Media Group | Department of Computer Science
>> - The Network Institute
>> VU University Amsterdam
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 9 April 2013 13:15:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:35 UTC