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

Re: New Draft comments: Motivations in SKOS

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 09:17:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CABevsUH6hvbeEdLn6b8otRHO5YWT9nVbYra-HYziqD+Kd-OEqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

>
> The only issues are a small typo (AnotherSchemne->**AnotherScheme), the
> fact that I would have lower-cased the instance ids (with my RDF eyes, my
> first reaction would be to read oa:MotivationSheme as a subclass of
> skos:ConceptScheme, not an instance of it ;-) ).
>

Yep, thanks for those, will fix.


> Also, I think all the broadMatch can be replaced by broader: the semantic
> relations are embedded in the design of the concerned concepts, they are
> not post-ante reconciliation of concepts that were created in isolation.
>

Okay, so broader to oa:editing, but closeMatch to each other, yes?



> On comment 1: I agree for keeping oa:Motivation makes much sense. But part
> of my point was to get rid of the general oa:annotating concept. Asserting
> that a concept is narrower than oa:annotation doesn't had much information
> to asserting that this concept is a member of oa:motivationScheme, I think.
>

Sorry, I must have been asleep when either reading or writing, not sure
which :)

However, on this one, I just want to clarify that new motivations that are
not broader to any of the existing instances would thus not have any
broader relationship, and the oa:motivationScheme [note caps:)] would not
have a topConcept.

So:

xx:identifying a oa:Motivation ;
  skos:inScheme xx:myMotivationScheme ;
  skos:prefLabel "Identifying"@en .

And the subclassing of oa:Motivation is sufficient.

Rob
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2013 16:17:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 10 January 2013 16:17:44 GMT