Re: Review of prov-dc

Will do this before the end of the day.
Thanks,
Daniel


2013/4/18 Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>

>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 2:28 AM, Daniel Garijo <
> dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote:
> > Thanks Stian for your review.
> > I have addressed most of the changes and answered your comments here:
> > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Stian_Soiland-Reyes
> > The document has now changes a lot since the last WD, so it would be
> great
> > if you could have a quick look before the next telecon.
> > Link:
> >
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/dc-note/releases/NOTE-prov-dc-20130430/Overview.html#dct-rightsHolder
>
> Thanks for revising (!) the document. The figures looks really nice now,
> specially on a high-density screen.
>
> As a quick summary of my response (due to the meeting starting in 3
> minutes) : The suggested changes look good, and I have no blockers. Some
> little tweaks in the new material is suggested below.
>
>
>
> Apologies to the formatting of this email, it is a bit difficult to
> respond to a wiki page...
>
> 1) Outdated citations:
> > [DCTERMS] Dublin Core Terms Vocabulary. 8 December 2010. URL: http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/
> Should be:
> > Dublin Core Terms Vocabulary. 14 June 2012. URL: http://dublincore.org/documents/2012/06/14/dcmi-terms/
>
> > I'm not sure about this change, since Thomas Baker (CIO of DCMI)
> proposed to use the current one.
>
> In Baker's review, it was the title of the document that was corrected:
>
>      Currently reads:
>
>         [DCTERMS]
>             Dublin Core Terms Vocabulary. 8 December 2010. URL:
> http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/
>
>      Should read:
>         [DCTERMS]
>             DCMI Metadata Terms. 8 December 2010. URL:
> http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/
>
> but I don't think he checked the dates, because if you follow the link you
> get the http://dublincore.org/documents/2012/06/14/dcmi-terms/ version,
> not the http://dublincore.org/documents/2010/10/11/dcmi-terms/ version
> (note, October, not December).
>
> I think we should use the version IRI here, so that future readers are not
> confused by the missing mapping of any DCMI terms that are added/modified
> in a later version.
>
> Thus:
>    [DCTERMS] DCMI Metadata Terms. 14 June 2012. URL:
> http://dublincore.org/documents/2012/06/14/dcmi-terms/
>
> > Unfortunately I can't put text in italics in the figures, it would
> require me to redo them again. I think that this suggestion is not really
> necessary since with capital letter reads fine. I have looked other
> documents and they don't even introduce the class.
>
> It's not ideal, but as the classnames (except prov:Publish) should all be
> fairly well known I'll let it pass. ;-)
>
> > Added table with the mappings. Added rationale for those not mapped.
>
> Very good. Some small typos in the new table:
>
> intelectual -> intellectual
>
> > As we discussed in last week's telecon, dct:references is a subproperty
> of wasDerivedFrom. It might seem a bit strong, but after all the resource
> referencing the pre existing resource wouldn't have been the same if the
> preexisting resource didn't exist. No changes done.
>
> Just to confirm that I don't agree with this mapping (and would almost
> never use prov:wasDerivedFrom in such fashion), but I won't be blocking on
> this.
>
>
> > I don't agee here. If you "publish" the entity you submit the text via
> a form, etc. to the wordpress platform to publish. That text would be the
> "usedEntity". The same thing applies for issued. You can contribute to
> create an entity that has not existed, but in order to make public some
> content (publish), you need some pre- existing content. Otherwise it
> wouldn't be a "publish" activity, but a "creation" activity...
>
> OK, I can buy into this.
>
> 30) dct:dateCopyrighted should NOT have a used_entity
>
> > I think that this is similar to my previous argument. You create a
> resource and then you copyright it. They are different activities. The
> input of the copyrightable activity could be the text you want to copyright.
>
> No, those are not distinct activities. You gain copyright simply by
> creating something of intellectual value. If I write here now a horrible
> haiku:
>
>   Daniel is great
>   He creates and fix and sing
>   To everyone's joy
>
> then I instantly gain copyright on that. There's no specific activity
> involved with gaining copyright - it's a right!
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Obtaining_and_enforcing_copyright
>
> Due to time constraints, I won't block on this, but I think the current
> model with a prov:Copyright activity assumes too much about the legal
> processes. (As described in the article above, it is common in some
> countries (US) to REGISTER copyright - which certainly is an activity; but
> this is independend from (and after) actually gaining copyright.
>
>
> In all countries where the Berne Convention<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works> standards
>> apply, copyright is automatic, and need not be obtained through official
>> registration with any government office. Once an idea has been reduced to
>> tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a
>> drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape, or a computer file), the
>> copyright holder is entitled to enforce his or her exclusive rights.
>
>
> I don't agree. If I have a catalog of books/products, etc. and I replace
> item 4 in the catalog (a travel guide of Madrid) with item 45 (a travel
> guide of paris), then they are not alternates of each other. However the
> specialized entities in the catalog MadridGuideAsItem4 and
> ParisGuideAsItem4 would be alternates of each other (and one is derived
> from the other). I'll add it in the complex mapping.
>
> OK, I think I understand your rationale for dct:replaces now. It is the
> "book as X" that is replaced by "anotherbook as X" - you consider it to be
> replaced in a certain context/role/collection.
>
> I think it becomes more clear if we flip the sentence around:
>
> There is a relation between two resources when the former replaces or
>> displaces the latter. However, we can't always assume the replacement is
>> derived from the former resource, because the replacement could have
>> existed and been generated independently from the original (for instance if
>> a "Introduction to provenance" book replaces the "Provenance in a nutshell"
>> book in a catalog). Therefore the "replace" Activity uses a specialization
>> of the replaced entity (_:oldEntity) and generated a specialization of
>> the replacement (_:newEntity). These specializations model the aspect of
>> the resource which is the subject of replacement, thus, _:newEntity was
>> derived from _:oldEntity.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
>