- From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 00:40:31 +0100
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Cc: "<public-prov-wg@w3.org>" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAExK0DfrT=xdfMiqcPQnKMU5XqBPYT3HTxpA7TF9mQ8ydCAp2w@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks for your feedback, Paul. I'll open some issues to deal with the particular typos you have found. Some responses below: 2013/2/27 Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> > Hi Daniel, > > Great work. I'm happy for the note to go out as a working draft. > > A couple of things to think about for next round: > - It seems we should say something about the dct:provenance relation other > thatn we don't do a mapping. Can we not map it to bundles or have it point > to an entity? I wonder what the relation to prov:has_provenance is? > Yes, I thought about this in my last revision, but since we were mapping DC to PROV-O I didn't want to introduce that kind of relationship yet. dct:provenance has range ProvenanceStatement, which could be mapped as a subclass of bundle. Either that or just map dct:provenance as a subproperty od prov:has_provenance, which points to the place for provenance... I'll have to look at the definitions a bit more. > - In section 2.2. point 1) - I would remove the mention of blank nodes - > this doesn't seem to add anything > - Does "his leads to bloated and not very intuitive data representations." > add anything? > - In section 2.2 you mention a clean-up phase which has not yet been > described. > - There's a typo in the acknowledgments "Iniciative" should be "initiative" > Ok, I will review these. > > Question: can the complex mappings be used to create dublin core > statements from prov? Are they bidirectional? > Yes IF the specializations with the roles are provided. We way something in section 3.6: "However, if the refinements are not used then only a few Dublin Core statements can be inferred from plain PROV statements", I will clarify this in the text better. > > Thanks > Paul > Best, Dani > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Daniel Garijo < > dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote: > >> 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: >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dc-note/dc-note.html >> >> A detailed answer to the reviews made by Simon and Luc can be accessed >> here: >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/AnswersToProvDCReviewers (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 >> http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-dc-directmappings.ttl and >> http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-dc-refinements.ttl. >> Both have changed a little bit). Who should I contact to do so? >> The right versions can be accessed at >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/dc-note/files/prov-dc-directmappings.ttl >> and >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/dc-note/files/prov-dc-refinements.ttlrespectively. >> >> Best, >> Daniel >> > > > > -- > -- > Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) > http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ > Assistant Professor > - Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group | > Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science > - The Network Institute > VU University Amsterdam
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 23:40:58 UTC