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

Hi Simon,
thanks for your quick response!

2013/2/22 Miles, Simon <>

>  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.
I will look into it.

>  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?

Regarding the definition of derivation, "a transformation of an entity into
another, an update of an entity resulting in a new one, or *the
construction of a new entity based on a pre-existing entity*", it is clear
that this case is not a transformation or an update of an entity into
another. So we are discussing the third part (highlighted). My concern here
(and Michael's) is that stating a derivation is kind of contradictory. What
if the text was "The construction of this document (Doc1) was not based on
REF 1". Stating the derivation would imply exactly the opposite. Derivation
is too strong in this case, don't you think?.


>  thanks,
> Simon
>      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
> Best,
> Daniel

Received on Friday, 22 February 2013 16:17:39 UTC