W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > January 2013

New Draft comments: Motivations in SKOS

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 16:59:30 +0100
Message-ID: <50E99F62.80501@few.vu.nl>
To: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Hi,

Due to personal interests I've switched directly to
http://www.openannotation.org/spec/future/appendices.html#ExtendingMotivations

I've found it a very well put first attempt (and it was quite a shift from the previous solution for motivations!).

Here are my comments--besides the general one made earlier on lowercasing instance names.


1. Is oa:Annotating really needed? It should be enough that motivations are in oa:MotivationScheme (or are defined to be a sub-concept of a concept that is in oa:MotivationScheme) to infer that these are kind of annotation purposes.


2. Using skos:topConceptOf is valid, but this property was coined for technical reasons. It would be better to keep to the property in the other direction, skos:hasTopConcept.


3. I am not sure that putting all new motivation concepts (new:Correcting and new2:Fixing) in the reference oa:MotivationScheme. If several applications create their own, potentially overlapping motivation concepts, then oa:MotivationSheme risks becoming difficult to use. For extensions, knowing that a concept defined to be a sub-concept of a "reference" concept that is in oa:MotivationScheme (possibly indirectly, via skos:broaderTransitive) should meet most requirements I can think of.


4. It is good practice to use language tags with SKOS labels. This should appear in the machine-readable file, but also be reflected in the example.


With all these suggestions, Figure B could be reworked to look more like the attached diagram (not trying to enforce any graphic convention here! It's just that I don't have time to refine it...)

Antoine


Received on Sunday, 6 January 2013 16:00:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 January 2013 16:00:04 GMT