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

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