W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > August 2012

Re: oa:equivalent not yet in core-schema.xml

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 16:01:59 -0600
Message-ID: <CABevsUEJSc0gDUDuYeg6q+Sw5Cc2fnJtPU0CDgmsYcXxgk=ZaA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com>, public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
<soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure *how* it would be modeled though.
>>
>> A suggestion was raised to get rid of equivalent and recommend either
>> skos:exactMatch or skos:closeMatch.  How do people feel about these
>> three options?


> +1 to avoid yet another equivalence notion!
> However, what do we need it for? For mirroring annotations?

For three primary scenarios:

1.  An annotation is created by a client that cannot assign HTTP URIs
by itself, and hence the annotation's identifier is a UUID.  The
server then creates an HTTP URI for the annotation and asserts the
equivalence (in some way) between the UUID and the new HTTP URI.

2.  An annotation is created by a client that embeds some of the
resources using the Content in RDF specification.  It is published to
a server which then extracts the resources and gives them their own
HTTP URIs allowing them to be dereferenced separately.  The server
then asserts the equivalence between the UUID of the Content in RDF
resource and the new HTTP URI.

3.  A second harvesting/subscribing server collects annotations from
the first server in 1 and 2.  It then republishes the annotations at
URIs in its own domain and asserts equivalence between the URI on the
original server and the URI on the new server.

And all of this is in order to prevent another service from harvesting
all of the above resources and ending up with multiple copies of them
to store and index.


> I would question whether such annotations are equivalent or even close
> match - because it could have later change upstream or even where it
> is now.

I would be happy with close.  If they divert to the point where
they're no longer close, then they probably should be treated
separately.


> It is more like it has been derived? I would use prov:wasQuotedFrom
> from PROV-O (it's like a full quote), combined with prov:alternateOf
> to show that they were somewhat interchangeable at the time.

prov:alternateOf seems like a better relationship than oa:equivalent
or skos:closeMatch.


Rob
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2012 22:02:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 8 August 2012 22:02:28 GMT