- From: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 19:12:16 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
PROV-ISSUE-404 (Feedback_SS): Feedback on the mapping from Satya Sahoo [Mapping PROV-O to Dublin Core] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/404 Raised by: Daniel Garijo On product: Mapping PROV-O to Dublin Core A few comments that may be useful as starting points for further discussions/review : 1. Many terms currently listed in the description metadata are also provenance-specific: educationLevel (the qualification of person/agent is relevant provenance in appointments/promotions etc.) license (why - type of license is relevant provenance for legal/contractual enforcement) spatial (where - corresponds to prov:Location) temporal (when - corresponds to xsd:DateTime) isRequiredBy (why, who - relevant provenance for legal/contracts) type (which - relevant provenance for all PROV type attribute) language, format (what - provenance information for rendering) Additional terms that describe provenance include accessRights (why - why is agent not liable for sharing object with given access rights), accrualPeriodicity (when) 2. Both rdfs:subPropertyOf and rdfs:subClassOf are specialization (of property and class respectively). Hence, both "Direct Mappings" and "PROV Specializations" can be merged into a single section of "Specialization" 3. The mechanism to reconcile blank nodes to a specific URI is not clear. Will it be done manually or automatically?
Received on Saturday, 9 June 2012 19:12:24 UTC