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

Re: New Draft comments: Multiplicity

From: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:46:33 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFPX2kAyjtXSaBL2SF-pJQ_x_mo-78CmkELe2=ku4w-Hcg-a6g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
This is to have an idea of what can be done with some axioms and properties:
http://code.google.com/p/collections-ontology/wiki/UnderstandingCO

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Paolo Ciccarese
<paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
>>>  As a way to alleviate the issue, and also have better matching between
>>>> OA
>>>> and RDF, I'd suggest the following "bridging" axioms:
>>>> rdf:first rdfs:subPropertyOf oa:item .
>>>> oa:item  owl:propertyChainAxiom  ( rdf:rest  oa:item ) .
>>>> It think this would provide a sound basis on which the oa:item
>>>> statements
>>>> from Fig 4.3 could be derived.
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>
>>> While a great idea, I'm not sure that we can make assertions like this
>>> about rdf:first?
>>>
>>> My preference, especially at this stage, would be to leave it alone
>>> and add an editors note that ordering in RDF is inherently problematic
>>> and future specifications may require changes to the mapping.  This
>>> would also give an opportunity to explain why we introduce the classes
>>> rather than just using Alt, Bag and List directly.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'm ok for the editor note, but then I would use it as an argument for
>> using rdf:List directly. The note can say that this would be reverted if
>> RDF drops or changes lists (which btw I think it won't do: Bag, Seq and Alt
>> are slightly questionable classes, but lists are used in many places, e.g.,
>> OWL).
>>
>> By the way you could treat my suggestion for the axioms "bridging"
>> between rdf:first/rdf:rest and oa:item. Perhaps re-expressing it as an
>> algorithm to obtain oa:item statements from rdf:first/rdf:rest ones. It can
>> be useful to have a (semi-)formal spec in the document. After all, whether
>> it fits OWL(2-DL) or not does not matter much: data producers will have to
>> implement these rules to obtain the desired oa:item statements!
>>
>
>
> There is plenty of existing work in that area. Including work I've
> personally done.
> I would make sure to not re-invent the wheel on ways of representing lists
> in OWL.
> I would postpone this to a later time rather than rush it now.
>
> Paolo
>
>


-- 
Dr. Paolo Ciccarese
http://www.paolociccarese.info/
Biomedical Informatics Research & Development
Instructor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School
Assistant in Neuroscience at Mass General Hospital
+1-857-366-1524 (mobile)   +1-617-768-8744 (office)

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the addressee(s),
may contain information that is considered
to be sensitive or confidential and may not be forwarded or disclosed to
any other party without the permission of the sender.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately.
Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 21:47:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 28 January 2013 21:47:00 GMT