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

Re: New Draft comments: Multiplicity

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 23:20:12 +0100
Message-ID: <5106F99C.50404@few.vu.nl>
To: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Thanks Paolo!

I thought suggesting something that mimics OWL (and is contained in 2-3 lines) could be useful. But for the record I have nothing against taking axioms that have been specified elsewhere and differently. As long as they're readable as a (semi)formal spec and are equivalent to the ones I've proposed...
In fact I would take that if they're equivalent (I hope they are! If they're not then there's really something about lists and oa:item that I don't get...) it's a good sign. And suggest that we can indeed rush it: we're talking about an editor note, again; it would be more a reminder for future validation than a strong commitment.

Antoine


> 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 <mailto: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 22:20:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 28 January 2013 22:20:41 GMT