Re: Updates to the DUV model diagram...

Thank you both for your comments.  Because the model has been adjusted I
have not applied changes to the vocabulary document.  At this point I feel
the model is stabled enough to make  changes to the document.

Thank you for the vocabulary references and I will update the document to
reflect your references.

See my comments below....

Thanks,

Eric S

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Silvio Peroni <silvio.peroni@unibo.it>
wrote:

> Hi Eric, Joao, all
>
> Dr Peroni - Your guidance has been wonderful and I hope I incorporated all
> the corrections you previously mentioned.  I have a question regarding the
> stability of some of the vocabularies we are using.  Are any of these
> vocabularies still evolving (e.g. c4o)?
>
>
> All the SPAR Ontologies (http://www.sparontologies.net), including C4O,
> are pretty stable right now. The only think that may happen in the future
> is that I can extend them we now terms. In addition, C4O was one of the
> first ontologies we have developed, since it concerns citation contexts
>
> Ok


> About the diagram: there are still few issues. Here my corrections:
> - oa:hasMotivation from duv:UserFeedback to oa:Motivation should be
> oa:motivatedBy;
> - c4o:hasComment must be changed in c4o:hasContent;
> - rdfs:literal should be rdfs:Literal.
>
>
Yes thank you for these corrections.


> In addition, I would suggest to change the organisation of fabio:Comment
> in a similar way to the other classes, i.e., the property c4o:hasContent
> should be placed on an arrow having fabio:Comment as starting point and
> rdfs:Literal has ending point.
>
>
This is not so easy.  At the request, of comments from the WG, I removed
all redundant classes and it was suggested by the WG that as an alternative
to showing redundant classes I put properties inside the class.  To make
this approach not appearing odd for one class, I used this same approach to
declare a rdfs:label rdfs:Literal property for classes duv:Usage and
duv:UsageTool.


> I suppose that only the diagram has been changed since the actual text of
> the document is not align to it. Is it right?
>
>
Yes this is correct, to save time and effort I want to resolve all comments
in the model before synchronizing the remainder of the document.


> Answering to Joao:
>
> Another namespace c4o is mentioned here… was it ever used before? It is
> not listed in the text.
>
>
>

> Even other prefixes (e.g., biro) are not listed as well, but I think this
> is due to the fact that the text has not been aligned to the diagram yet.
> BTW, the prefixes for the ontologies I’ve introduced are:
>
> biro: http://purl.org/spar/biro/
> c4o: http://purl.org/spar/c4o/
> cito: http://purl.org/spar/cito/
> fabio: http://purl.org/spar/fabio/
>


> About comments in annotations. The open annotation vocab says: “Embedded
> bodies SHOULD be instances of cnt:ContentAsText and embed their content
> with cnt:chars. They SHOULD declare their media type with dc:format, and
> MAY indicate their language using dc:language and a RFC-3066 language tag. There
> is no OA class provided for "Body" as a body might be a target of a
> different annotation. However, there SHOULD be 1 or more content-based
> classes associated with the body resources of an Annotation, and the
> dctypes: vocabulary is recommended for this purpose, for instance
> dctypes:Text to declare textual content.”
>
> Are we deviating from this recommendation in OA by using fabio:Comment?
>
>
> Thanks Joao for spotting this. The use of fabio:Comment is one of the
> possibility I’ve proposed to Eric my past email, with the other alternative
> I’ve suggested, introduced in the following link, which is along the line
> of the description in the OA vocab:
>
> http://www.sparontologies.net/ontologies/cito#cito_2
>
> As said, the use of fabio:Comment is just a possible way of modelling that
> (where implicitly all the instance of fabio:Comment are seen as a pure
> textual content of a comment). However, I’m fine with using the way
> suggested by Joao, since it is actually what the OA spec suggest, i.e.:
>
> :annotation a oa:Annotation;
>     oa:motivatedBy oa:commenting ;
>     oa:hasBody :comment ;
>     oa:hasTarget :citation-act .
>
> :comment a cnt:ContentAsText ;
>     cnt:chars "I'm citing that paper because it
>         initiated this whole new field of research." .
>
> :citation-act a cito:CitationAct;
>     cito:hasCitingEntity :paper-a ;
>     cito:hasCitedEntity :paper-b .
>
> I really prefer this approach to using cnt:ContentAsText.  I'm switching
to this new proposed approach using RDF Content working draft:
https://www.w3.org/TR/Content-in-RDF10/


> What do you think?
>
>

> Have a nice day :-)
>
> S.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Silvio Peroni, Ph.D.
> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
> University of Bologna, Bologna (Italy)
> Tel: +39 051 2094871
> E-mail: silvio.peroni@unibo.it
> Web: http://www.essepuntato.it
> Twitter: essepuntato
>
>