Re: [Proposed Resolution] Re: [regrep-comment] Public Comment

[Richard Martell <rmartell@galdosinc.com>]

Farrukh Najmi wrote:
> Below is my proposed resolution to Richard's comment...
> 
> Please comment so I can send formal reply. Thanks.
> 
> Hi Richard,
> 
> Thank you for your comment. Please see our response inline below....
> 
> comment-form@oasis-open.org wrote:
> 
>>Comment from: rmartell@galdosinc.com
>>
>>[ADVISORY] Use of the term "Provenance"
>>
>>---------------------------------------
>>
>>The term "provenance" does not seem apt in Section 5.
>>
>>
>>
>>In the Dublin Core element set, provenance is defined as "A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity and interpretation."
>>  
>>
> The term "provenance" is described in Webster Online Dictionary as:
> 
> *1* *: ORIGIN 
> <http://webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=origin>, 
> SOURCE <http://webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=source>*
> *2* *:* the history of ownership of a valued object or work of art or 
> literature
> 
> http://webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=provenance&x=0&y=0
> 

Farrukh,

Yes, so one approach is to shuffle things about a bit to also include
AuditableEvent in Section 5 in order to better reflect the meaning of
provenance, which under any definition emphasizes lineage or change
history (i.e. the audit trail, or some part thereof).

Possible resolutions:

(1) Relocate the description of AuditableEvent from 7.1 to 5.x

(2) Leave AuditableEvent where it is and substitute "Responsible
     Party" for "Provenance" in section 5.


-- 
Richard