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

New Draft comments: Publishing

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 18:37:37 +0100
Message-ID: <510565E1.7030800@few.vu.nl>
To: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Hi,

Continuing my comments
http://www.openannotation.org/spec/future/publishing.html
as of January 27.

Best,

Antoine

=======


1. Names in JSON serialization specification
This has probably been discussed before I joined the group. But why are the names "body", "target", ..., "scope" not exactly following the labels of OA properties (oa:hasBody, oa:hasTarget, etc) just like all other names in the JSON serialization spec?


2. The paragraph on embedding RDF graphs in 5.2 ("An unusual [...] serialized resource") could be quite confusing. Especially, it reads a bit out of synch with 5.4, which recommends using named graphs.
I'd suggest:
a. to keep the part on this in 5.2 minimal and refer to 5.4: "Embedding resources also allow to embed RDF graphs as a whole, as described in Section 5.4."
b. to merge the current 5.2 paragraph in 5.4, which could be done by
- giving a more general header to 5.4, "Annotations using Graphs"
- having the first paragraph of 5.4 become:
[
One particular case of embedding resources within an Annotation, is embedding other resources expressed using RDF. The triples that make up these resources MUST NOT be simply put into the Annotation graph, as the triples must remain distinguishable as to authorship and provenance. If it were done otherwise, the metadata and identifier of the Body/Target graph would be lost and subsumed in the Annotation graph.

This MAY be done instead using the Content in RDF specification, as in the previous section. If the Body or Target resource is an RDF graph, a serialization of it can be embedded using cnt:ContentAsText. Consuming clients must be able to parse RDF to consume the Annotation, and thus can also parse the serialized resource. But named graphs are a possible alternative.
]


3. Is oa:equivalentTo transitive?


4. Is oa:equivalentTo meant to be used only for oa:Annotations?
*If yes* is it mappable to ore:similarTo [1]? This would relate to my very last comment on
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openannotation/2013Jan/0044.html
which I think was not really answered.
Now that the spec has has been (rightly so) shifted to make oa:Annotation a more conceptual, less serialization-focused notion, it could be harmful to have it likened to an ORE Aggregation.

[1] http://www.openarchives.org/ore/1.0/vocabulary.html#ore-similarTo
Received on Sunday, 27 January 2013 17:38:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 27 January 2013 17:38:06 GMT