Re: dc review

Daniel,

Continuing from https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/dc-note/releases/NOTE-prov-dc-20130430/Overview.html#list_of_direct_mappings2_classes
and finishing to the end.

I tried to stay "spelling and grammar" checker, but I slipped into an actual review…. so ignore anything that is too late for the WG process.

Regards,
Tim



27)

Does "with small changes for creator and rightsHolder)" need some formatting for the terms?


28)

3.3.1.1 and others

Could you clean up the spacing so that it is less jaggy and easier to read?
The indents are quite drastic. I'd suggestion 3-space indents.

29)

Please be consistent with the space before the semicolon. Include it, or not. but be consistent.
(I prefer no space-before-semicolon)

30)

"Dates often correspond with a who-property, e.g., creator and created or publisher and issued." 
is hard to follow.
==>
suggest:
"Dates often correspond with a who-property. For example, date created implies a creator and date issued implies a publisher."


31)

3.3.2.1's first sentence isn't really a sentence, I think b/c you're pretending the section title is the subject.

"Term defined as a point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource."


32)

No sentences in the following sections leave the reader stranded
3.3.2.2 dct:created

3.3.2.3 dct:issued

3.3.2.4 dct:modified

3.3.2.5 dct:dateAccepted

3.3.2.7 dct:dateSubmitted


suggest to add a sentence in each, "similar to as discussed in XXX, dct:created is mapped to PROV thusly"

33)

"a intro" should be "An Intro" in the following, but I suggest a further rewrite

"(for instance if a "Introduction to provenance" book replaces the "Provenance in a nutshell" book in a catalog)"
=>
"(for example, if a catalog replaces a book entitled "Introduction to provenance" with one entitled "Provenance in a nutshell")"


34)

"and conflate the blank nodes result of one activity with the input of the subsequent activity. "
doesn't make sense. After a few reads, I think I get the gist, but this could be stated more more clearly.


35)

spelling:

"either because thay are not suitable"


36)

I don't buy Table 9's claim that dct:accrualMethod should be excluded.
Isn't it a prov:Plan of some Association of some Activity that generated the entity?


37)

For dct:available, I suggest to mention generation, too.

"Property that states when a resource is available. There is no direct mapping between this property and the notion of invalidation in PROV."
=>
"Property that states when a resource is available. There is no direct mapping between this property and the PROV notions of generation and invalidation."

38)

Dangling "to"

"The educational level of the audience for which the resource is intended to."
==>
"The educational level of the audience for which the resource is intended."


39)

Table 9's dcterms:identifier justification ("An unambiguous reference on a given context.") contorts DC's definition of 

"An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context."

suggest to just use DC's original definition.


40)


table 9's instructionalMethod phrasing is much more cluttered than DC's original: 
"A process, used to engender knowledge, attitudes and skills, that the described resource is designed to support."


suggest to use DC's original definition


41)

"This is not related the provenance of the resource"
==>
"This is not related to the provenance of the resource"


42)

"a library dependency in script program"
is ambiguous with "building of books" libraries.
suggest rewrite to:

"a programming scripts' dependency on another dependency"


43)

Table 9's dct:valid claims "The notion of invalidation is defined in PROV-DM, but not the notion of validation."

I disagree.

DC definition is "Date (often a range) of validity of a resource." and could correspond to PROV's generation and invalidation of the resource or one of its specializations.

Please acknowledge this relation and provide a stronger justification for why it wasn't' included.


44)

rdf:Class does not exist.

it should be rdfs:Class.



45)

Table 10's claim on dct:AgentClass is wrong.

DC definition: "Examples of Agent Class include groups seen as classes, such as students, women, charities, lecturers."

Here, I presume "class" is in the educational audience sense.

dct:AgentClass is a subclass of prov:Organization, specifically those that are viewed as "an educational audience".


46)

Table 10 on dct:FileFormat:

Format of a digital resource. This class is not described by any of the DC properties and normally is directly associated to literals (such as ".doc", "jpg", etc.). Therefore it is not part of this mapping.

"This class is not described by any of the DC properties "? 
* What about http://purl.org/dc/terms/format ? It's range is http://purl.org/dc/terms/MediaTypeOrExtent and http://purl.org/dc/terms/FileFormat is narrower than http://purl.org/dc/terms/MediaType


"normally is directly associated to literals (such as ".doc", "jpg", etc.)"
* Under what definition of "normal"?
* Whey are you making claims beyond the DC definition?

These two justifications need to be revised. And if not, just removed b/c they do more damage than good.

dct:FileFormat is a subclass of prov:Entity.


same objections on the rows for MediaType and MediaTypeOrExtent and PhysicalMedium




47)

or other authority".
=>
or other authority."


48)

For PeriodOfTime in Table 10 you should mention that PROV models instantaneous events, and entities and activities can be seen as occupying intervals of time, but there is no clear mapping.


49)

SizeOrDuration needs a good justification, since "Dimension or time taken to execute something." looks exactly like provenance.
Where did "Dimension or time taken to execute something." come from? It's misleading form the DC definition:

"""A dimension or extent, or a time taken to play or execute.
Examples include a number of pages, a specification of length, width, and breadth, or a period in hours, minutes, and seconds."""

You should note that the "duration" aspect of the size is prospective, while PROV only addresses retrospective durations.


50)

"Range of the dct:conformsTo property to associate a resource with its standard. This class is not described by any of the DC properties "

what does "described" mean? And, why does not being "described" justify it not being in the mapping?

Please outline these assumptions and rules into the beginning of the section for this table.



51)

What is a "refinement"?
Please add a link to where it is introduced.


"If the refinements proposed in this document are used, then the inverse of the complex mapping patterns can be applied. However, if the refinements are not used then only a few DC statements can be inferred from plain PROV statements."


52)

Add to: (to reinforce that DC is more specific)

"For example, when mapping dates there is no information to guess whether an activity with an associated date is a creation, a modification or a publication activity."
==>
"For example, when mapping dates there is no information to guess whether an activity with an associated date is a creation, a modification or a publication activity. This is because DC provides more specific classes of activities."

"Likewise, the agents involved cannot be mapped to creators, contributors, or publishers."
==>
"Likewise, the agents involved cannot be mapped to creators, contributors, or publishers. This is because DC provides more specific classes of agency."



53)

"PROV models a provenance chain, but it provides almost no information about the involved resources themselves."
=>
"Because PROV is focused on modeling provenance chains, it does not provide ways to describe the resources being chained together."




Regards,
Tim




On Apr 18, 2013, at 3:29 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:

> Daniel,
> 
> Up to and including https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/dc-note/releases/NOTE-prov-dc-20130430/Overview.html#list_of_direct_mappings2_classes
> 
> will send the rest later,
> Regards,
> Tim
> 
> 
> 1)
> "Online Computer Library center" -> Online Computer Library Center
> 
> 
> 2)
> section 1.2 extra space in the link:
> 
> "Section 3.4 intro"
> 
> 3)
> 
> Section 2 "Section 2.1: The relation of the DC terms with provenance."
> 
> 
> 4)
> 
> Capital L in "Derivation and licensing Terms (How?): " ?
> 
> 5)
> 
> missing prefix on: "heir access (accessRights) are con"
> 
> 
> 6)
> 
> 
> comma and spacing is odd in table 3 ", FileFormat, ,Frequency, "
> 
> 
> 7)
> 
> clicking on https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/dc-note/releases/NOTE-prov-dc-20130430/Overview.html#example1 truncates the title and description.
> 
> suggest moving the anchor up.
> 
> 
> 8)
> 
> extra period in "complex mapping defined in this document.. Blank nodes are u"
> 
> 
> 9)
> end of section 2
> 
> would be nice to have a link to "cleanup phase" in "leaving the conflating of nodes to the cleanup phase"
> 
> 
> 10)
> 
> is "copy righted" one word?
> 
> 
> 11)
> 
> add link to "See rationale for dct:isFormatOf " in table 4.
> 
> 
> 12)
> 
> phrase is odd: "Thus, the mapping is straightforward to prov:alternateOf."
> 
> 
> 13)
> 
> "dct:isFormatOf refers to another pre-existing resource which is the same but in another format" is incorrect. 
> 
> http://dublincore.org/documents/2012/06/14/dcmi-terms/?v=terms#isFormatOf says nothing about "pre-existing"
> 
> 
> 14)
> 
> 
> "However, prov:wasDerivedFrom also covers broader derivations" is missing orange color for prov:wasDerivedFrom
> 
> 
> 15)
> 
> need period at end of "an update of an entity resulting in a new one" which is not covered by dct:source"
> 
> 
> 16)
> 
> 
> 
> missing period: "A bibliographic resource refers to books, articles, etc., which are concrete PROV entities"
> 
> 
> 
> 17)
> 
> 
> 
> "od"? in " is a system od symbols,"
> 
> 
> 18)
> 
> typo in "spatian regions or named places"
> 
> 
> 19)
> 
> "dct:MethodOfAccrual define" ==> "dct:MethodOfAccrual defines" (add "s")
> 
> 20)
> 
> spelling error "intelectual"
> 
> 
> 21)
> 
> missing period "A material thing, which is a concrete type of prov:Entity"
> 
> 
> 22)
> 
> http://purl.org/dc/terms/Policy
> 
> do not need second period "r matters.". "
> 
> 
> 23)
> 
> capitalization "such as example 1 will infer that "
> 
> 
> 24)
> 
> What does "(2)" mean in Table 6: Direct mappings (Properties) (2) ?
> and
> Table 7: Direct mappings (Classes) (2)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 25)
> 
> extra space table 6:
> 
> "( "A related r"
> 
> 
> 26)
> 
> "refers to revised version of a resource" ==> "refers to a revised version of a resource" (add "a")
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 18, 2013, at 12:53 PM, Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Tim,
>> now you can have a look.
>> Best,
>> Daniel
>> PS: I know the files pointed by the doc are outdated. I'm working on it.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 2013/4/18 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
>> I'll stand by.
>> Thanks.
>> TIm
>> 
>> On Apr 18, 2013, at 11:31 AM, Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote:
>> 
>>> Please let me push a couple of remaining changes that I have pending...
>>> I'll send you an email when I'm done (hopefully soon after the telecon).
>>> I have seen that Stian has sent me additional changes too.
>>> Anyway, the link seems right.
>>> Best,
>>> Daniel
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2013/4/18 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
>>> Daniel,
>>> 
>>> So i'm looking through https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/dc-note/releases/NOTE-prov-dc-20130430/Overview.html for typos and grammar?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tim
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>

Received on Friday, 19 April 2013 14:06:15 UTC