Re: PROV-ISSUE-404 (Feedback_SS): Feedback on the mapping from Satya Sahoo [Mapping PROV-O to Dublin Core]

Hi Satya,
I have answered your review here:
https://github.com/dcmi/DC-PROV-Mapping/wiki/Satya-sahoo
The changes that have to be done to the document are listed here:
https://github.com/dcmi/DC-PROV-Mapping/wiki/Dealing-with-feedback
in the changelog section.

Best,
Daniel


2012/6/9 Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@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?
>
>
>
>