Re: Last draft comment: Core

>
> > 4. Mapping to Dublin Core in 2.2
> > In an earlier version oa:annotatedBy (resp. oa:annotatedAt,
> oa:serializedBy)
> > was mapped to dcterms:creator (resp. dcterms:created, dcterms:publisher.
> I'm
> > not sure why these mappings were removed, as they seem quite right and
> the
> > mapping to PROV does not really replace them.
>
> The decision was to remove them, I don't recall the exact rationale,
> other than to try to stick more closely to W3C standards where ever
> possible, and to not confuse the matter by having multiple mappings.
>

That was the reason I recall. And I would still be of the same advice.


>
>
> > 5. Relation between  oa:semanticTagging and oa:tagging in 2.3
>
> > I support Stian's interrogation (and his implicit proposal) at
> >
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openannotation/2013Feb/0002.html
> > "oa:semanticTagging is skos:narrowerThan (?) oa:tagging"
> > The spec should reflect that
> > oa:semanticTagging skos:narrower oa:tagging
> > otherwise it may be difficult to convince implementers to create semantic
> > relations for their motivation extensions.
>
> Sure. The more broadly usable motivations with clear use cases in the
> spec rather than having to be defined elsewhere, the better.
>

Wasn't Stian also mentioning some constraints:
"This means that in this semantic tagging I can't also include oa:hasBody
to "classic" bodies."

Do we consider those valid?
Figure 2.1.3.2. Semantic Tag is based on oa:tagging
I feel more explanations are needed for oa:semanticTagging.


> Two points:
> * Does this negate the need for oa:SemanticTag vs oa:Tag?
>

I don't think so. You can still use oa:tagging and attach types.
Especially when we have multiple tags and they have different nature.


> * Surely oa:semanticTagging skos:broader oa:tagging ?
>

I would say yes.

Paolo