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

Re: dc review

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 11:32:34 -0400
Cc: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <911DDCF3-FD02-4CC6-A6C5-7CA1ECB16E87@rpi.edu>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>

On Apr 19, 2013, at 11:22 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

> 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.

+1, "prospective vs. retrospective"; PROV is scoped to only the former.

> 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).

+1 I think this seals the deal for a solid justification.

>> 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
> dct:educationLevel.

I think Daniel is punting on this, but it would help to have a short, clear justification about why.

>> 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):


> https://gist.github.com/stain/4635250
>> 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!)

I agree that the provenance of formats is not *very* interesting. (And this should go into the justification)
But, when it is interesting to model their provenance (say, specializations, creation date of xhml, rdfa, etc), formats aren't Activities; they'd be Entities.


> -- 
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
Received on Friday, 19 April 2013 15:34:36 UTC

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