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

Re: PROV-DC: dct:isVersionOf usage

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 22:35:08 +0200
Message-ID: <CAExK0Dfi=M=XL5pJDhhwzuSDYQWZL35owTZpoJT_D2NoNjaJFA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Thanks for the detailed examples. Now, after reviewing them, I see your
point, specially with adaptations.
I think you are right, and I will change the mappping back to the way he
had it before
(prov:wasRevisionOf subPropertyOf dct:isVersionOf).

Thanks again,
Daniel


2013/4/16 Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>

> As I said before, the TTL of DC Terms itself uses the (implied)
> inverse dct:hasVersion in exactly the same fashion as I've described,
> so I don't believe it's anything unusual.
>
> http://dublincore.org/2012/06/14/dcterms.ttl
>
> Even by definition, I would argue that prov:wasRevisionOf does not
> cover generally adaptation, "revision" implies some kind of authority
> and update. Making a movie version of the theatre play "My Fair Lady"
> is certainly derivation, but not revisioning.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Daniel Garijo
> <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote:
> > Hi Paul, Stian.
> > Thanks for the examples Stian. Before agreeing I want to analyze them.
> >
> > The only reason why we made "isVersionOf" and "wasRevisionOf" equivalent
> was
> > because
> > neither PROV or DC defined the attributes of a "version" and a
> "revision".
> > DC isVersionOf: a related resource to which the current resource is a
> > version, edition or adaptation
> > PROV wasRevisionOf: a derivation for which the resulting entity is a
> revised
> > version of some original
> > since revision doesn't have any attributes defined, we could consider
> > "adaptation" included in there.
> >
> > Let me check whether these examples fit in the definitions or not (it
> could
> > also happen that the vocabulary was not
> > used correctly in the examples). I'll look into it later today.
> > Best,
> > Daniel
> >
> >
> > 2013/4/16 Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
> >>
> >> Hi Daniel, all
> >>
> >> Are there objections to making prov:wasRevisionOf a subProperty of
> >> dct:isVersionOf.
> >>
> >> From my perspective, this is a bit disappointing as it makes querying
> dct
> >> from prov harder. You couldn't query on prov:wasRevisionOf and get
> >> dct:isVersionOf back.
> >>
> >> However, I won't object to this change.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Paul
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
> >> <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Here are some examples I found on Sindice of using dct:isVersionOf in
> >>> the style of prov:specializationOf:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> http://sindice.com/search?q=&nq=(*%20%3Chttp%3A%2F%2Fpurl.org%2Fdc%2Fterms%2FisVersionOf%3E%20*)&fq=&interface=advanced
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> <http://www.myexperiment.org/workflows/154/versions/11>
> >>> <http://purl.org/dc/terms/isVersionOf>
> >>> <http://www.myexperiment.org/workflows/154> .
> >>>
> >>> <http://www.gyldendal.no/toraage/gullhjelmen/gullhjelmen
> >>> 1.html>
> >>> <http://purl.org/dc/terms/isVersionOf>
> >>> <http://www.akerbaek.no/dramatispersonae/act/bringsværd/gullhjelmen1>
> >>> .
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> <http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/obo/hao.owl#HAO_0000000>
> >>> <http://purl.org/dc/terms/isVersionOf>
> >>> <http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/HAO_000000> .
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I would argue none of these are prov:wasRevisionOf
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/developer/formats/rdf says:
> >>>
> >>> A rdfs:isDefinedBy link points from the item of legislation to the
> >>> latest version of the legislation. The latest version has a
> >>> dct:hasVersion pointer to the particular versioned (and dated)
> >>> document, which reciprocates with a dct:isVersionOf property.
> >>>
> >>> <frbr:Expression
> >>> rdf:about="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/67/sld/2003-04-01
> ">
> >>>   <dct:isVersionOf
> >>> rdf:resource="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/67" />
> >>> </frbr:Expression>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> So here it is used in a FRBR way to do hierarchical
> >>> prov:specializationOf.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> >From this I would still keep my blocking issue, make
> >>> prov:wasRevisionOf a subproperty of dct:isVersionOf.  You could argue
> >>> that dct:isVersionOf should be a subproperty of prov:specializationOf;
> >>> but I would not go there as that would only apply to cases like the
> >>> above where dct:isVersionOf has been used "proper".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> >>> School of Computer Science
> >>> The University of Manchester
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
>
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2013 20:35:39 UTC

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