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

Re: New Draft comments: textual bodies

From: Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 16:00:18 -0500
Message-ID: <CADUi7O43=jA4S65W-RN_ctjwEjRSyZVU8J6kcAQGJTt5KVigxw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>
Cc: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
I agree that both are needed.  I don't agree there is no problem.

If I am not mistaken, OWL DL, at least, requires that data properties
not be object properties, and if oa:hasBody is declared as both, then
it is turned into two predicates with the same name.  Surely this
problem is not restricted to hasBody and all such properties would
seem to have only these three solutions:
1. implicitly or explicitly duplicate such properties.
2. Take the possibility of an OWL DL representation of OA off the
table (or any other ontology with such a restriction )
3. Adopt some solution like Content in RDF, wherein hasBody remains an
object property, and literals are hung off an object of standardized
type.

FWIW, some of dcmi-terms is a mess because of not treating this
problem rigorously.

Bob Morris


On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Jacco van Ossenbruggen
<Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl> wrote:
>
> On Jan 6, 2013, at 4:51 PM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>
>> "This model was chosen over having a literal as the Body directly for the following reasons:"
>> I'm sorry, but I still don't buy most of the reasons. And I believe I won't be the only one…
>
> I fully agree with Antoine here.
>
> I think all arguments given in the document are very good arguments to argue for _allowing_ bodies to be URI resources for those who need them to be. I'm all for that. But I do not buy any of the arguments as a solid argument _disallowing_ literal texts as bodies for those who prefer them to be literals.
>
> I can see problems when you do not allow URI bodies.
> I can see problems when you do not allow literal bodies.
> But I cannot see what problems arise when you allow both.
>
> Jacco
>
> PS:  "Representing Content in RDF 1.0" seems like a spec that is dead on arrival… is there any evidence it is not?
>
>



-- 
Robert A. Morris

Emeritus Professor  of Computer Science
UMASS-Boston
100 Morrissey Blvd
Boston, MA 02125-3390

IT Staff
Filtered Push Project
Harvard University Herbaria
Harvard University

email: morris.bob@gmail.com
web: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/
web: http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush
http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram
===
The content of this communication is made entirely on my
own behalf and in no way should be deemed to express
official positions of The University of Massachusetts at Boston or
Harvard University.
Received on Sunday, 6 January 2013 21:00:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 January 2013 21:00:50 GMT