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

Re: New Draft comments: Motivations in SKOS

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 19:05:01 +0100
Message-ID: <50EF02CD.40606@few.vu.nl>
To: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>

>     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?


You mean
new2:fixing skos:closeMatch new:correcting
?
Yes!
It could be exactMatch if you're certain that the correspondence is really precise.


>
>     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.


I'm not sure I understand this sentence, but...


> So:
>
> xx:identifying a oa:Motivation ;
> skos:inScheme xx:myMotivationScheme ;
> skos:prefLabel "Identifying"@en .
>
> And the subclassing of oa:Motivation is sufficient.


Yes, it should be.

Antoine
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2013 19:54:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 10 January 2013 19:54:23 GMT