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

Re: dc review

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 16:22:24 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtnVutmVbVs-3k8eKknDgeRpPG503K1sOqECmJ_vPtdtmQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Cc: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:

> 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.

The justification could touch on how dct:valid is also used for
indicating future/theoritical/planned validation periods or
invalidation periods; meanwhile prov:generatedAt and
prov:invalidatedAt indicate actual availability.

The other point is that the actual syntax of dct:valid is any literal
("For one forthnight"), and rather than using ISO 8601 formats for
periods and durations, a variety of actual syntaxes would be found in
the wild; therefore it would not syntactically be mappable to either
of the properties (which require xsd:dateTime).

> DC definition: "Examples of Agent Class include groups seen as classes, such as students, women, charities, lecturers."
> dct:AgentClass is a subclass of prov:Organization, specifically those that are viewed as "an educational audience".

I'm not sure.. a possible dct:Agentclass could be
ex:HighSchoolStudents - not the organization of 'students at Super
Duper High School'. The AgentClass instances are used with

> 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?

Agreed, those statements should be dropped. Here's an example of
describing a file format with dcterms (This is very secret stuff that
nobody does consistently):


> same objections on the rows for MediaType and MediaTypeOrExtent and PhysicalMedium

I think it's not interesting to talk about such classifications as an
entity. What thing in the world is "text/html"? Would the provenance
of that media type be interesting? Most of the time - from a
document's point of view - no.  (But: For documents made in media
types that themselves are evolving, yes!)

Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Friday, 19 April 2013 15:23:16 UTC

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