Hi Daniel and Kai,

Thanks for revising the document.

Two comments ahead of my review.

1. dct:type owl:equivalentProperty prov:type
     prov:type does not exist! It's not a property in prov-o. We use 
rdf:type instead.

2. I still don't like the idea that dct:replaces maps to 
     One of the reasons is that we recommend not to use this relation 
but its subproperties.
     So, if we can't find a subproperty of wasInfluencedBy that is 
suitable for the mapping, I believe
     it is better to acknowledge that dct:replaces does not map to prov, 
rather than shoehorn it
     into wasInfluencedBy.

     This said, I am not convinced by your "catalog counter-example". To 
me, you have two
      entities, with a fixed aspect "belonging to the catalog", and the 
more recent one, I feel, can
       be derived from the previous one, in the sense that the previous 
one was selected to be
       removed, and replaced by the new one in the catalog.

      so, e2 dct:replaces e1  is OK to be mapped to

       e2 prov:wasDerivedFrom e1
       e2 prov:wasGeneratedBy a1
       a1 a Activity
         rdfs:label "select and replace activity"

      Furthermore, as a1 generates e2, e1 is no longer in the catalog 
(or e1 is at a different position in the catalog),
      we could even say:

        e1 prov:wasInvalidatedBy a1



Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email:
United Kingdom           

Received on Monday, 25 February 2013 11:41:42 UTC