- From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 09:07:05 -0600
- To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-openannotation@w3.org
Hi Stian, On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:57 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > However some facts stated in the specification is not reflected in the > schema, for instance: > oa:annotator Relationship [subProperty of dcterms:creator] > oa:annotated Property [subProperty of dcterms:created] > oa:generator Relationship [subProperty of dcterms:publisher] > oa:generated Property [subProperty of dcterms:issued] > OK, so I might not think that these subproperties are always a good > match - but if we say so in the specification, then why should not the > RDFS schema also reflect this with rdfs:subPropertyOf ? You caught my intentional (honestly!) mistake :) Indeed, these aren't great matches and Paolo and I have discussed changing to making them subProperties of the W3C provenance terms prov:wasAttributedTo and prov:generatedAtTime If there's no objections from the group, we'll go ahead and make this change. > The use of RDFS without any OWL means it is very difficult to see if > something is an object property or data property, and it all comes out > as "annotation properties" in Protege unless the rdfs:range has been > given. I'm happy to add the OWL types if people agree this would be useful. To date my approach has been to use OWL as minimally as possible based on previous pushback to it, but if it's not going to confuse either people or software systems, then I don't see the issue. Thanks! Rob
Received on Monday, 25 June 2012 15:07:39 UTC