RE: PROV-DC Note ready for internal (final?) review

Hello Daniel, Kai,

Thanks for the detailed responses and changes. I've skimmed the document, and it looks good. I'm also happy with the updates made in response to my comments. I have two remaining comments below. Neither are blocking issues and I'm happy for the note to go to FPWD.

1. In the abstract, one sentence doesn't quite make sense: "The direct mappings are broad and usually a more complex mapping can be specified," It is not clear what you mean by "broad", or why this is connected to specifying complex mappings. "Broad" is generally a positive term, while "complex" is a negative one. Intuitively, if the direct mappings are "broad", then this means they apply to many cases, but if so, why would you want to specify complex mappings? Complex mappings can be specified but, given that we want to avoid complexity, why do you need to? It needs to be rephrased.

2. I still can't understand how dct:references can be not a subproperty of prov:wasDerivedFrom. Expanding the example in your response, the complete document DOC1 might say:
  "This work has nothing to do with this random reference [REF1].
   [REF1] Kai and Daniel, Discussion on derivation, 2010."
First, DOC1 can only have the content it does if REF1 first exists, so REF1 is part of the provenance of DOC1. If the connection between the two, as expressed in PROV, is not derivation, what is it? Furthermore, DOC1 has to identify REF1 in order to reference it, e.g. this is done by title, authors and year above, and these identifiers are part of what REF1 is. Therefore, how can DOC1 not be derived from REF1?


Dr Simon Miles
Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166

Mapping Dublin Core (Attribution Metadata) to the Open Provenance Model:
From: [] on behalf of Daniel Garijo []
Sent: 20 February 2013 17:19
To: <>; Ivan Herman; Miles, Simon; Luc Moreau
Subject: PROV-DC Note ready for internal (final?) review

Hi all,
Kai and I have gone through the issues and we have given a pass through the whole document.
I have reestructured it and now I think it reads better.
The latest version can be accessed at:

A detailed answer to the reviews made by Simon and Luc can be accessed here: (on the bottom of the page)

The wiki page also summarizes the decissions over the main changes proposed to the mapping.
All issues are now pending review. Once I get the confirmation from Simon and Luc, I'll proceed to stage
the note.

@Ivan: I need to update 2 documents that are linked from the note (in particular and
Both have changed a little bit). Who should I contact to do so?
The right versions can be accessed at
and respectively.


Received on Friday, 22 February 2013 15:50:10 UTC