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

Best Practices - Semantic Tagging

From: Timothy W. Cook <timothywayne.cook@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 11:23:42 -0300
Message-ID: <CA+=OU3UeV7L_pvMHE5gP9YqKuD5H8RXUT4iy0Jtu3r6s4GLoqw@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
HI All,

Though I have read virtually everything I can find related to this
subject; including:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openannotation/2013Feb/0051.html

I really don't see the answer to my question.

First of all this is a "green field" area.  I do not have to be
concerned with existing documents and how it has been done in the
past.

I just want to get this right, the first time. Given all the
experience from people here.

Scenario:

I have XML Schemas that define data instance structures (as usual).
These schemas use a lot of complexTypes that are restrictions from a
base schema.  Since each base schema complexType can be represented in
a schema multiple times with different restrictions, I use a UUID
based name. For example:

  <xs:complexType name="ct-f6c5ea6e-6458-4799-874d-7f3d365d260d">
        <xs:complexContent>
            <xs:restriction base="mlhim2:DvQuantityType">
                <xs:sequence>

...

These complexTypes are almost always definable via a controlled
vocabulary, ex. SNOMED-CT

In order to add semantics to the complexType definition my current
thought is to use:

  <xs:complexType name="ct-f6c5ea6e-6458-4799-874d-7f3d365d260d">
    <xs:annotation>
      <xs:appinfo>
        <rdfs:isDefinedBy
rdfs:resource="http://purl.bioontology.org/ontology/SNOMEDCT/365761000"/>
      </xs:appinfo>
    </xs:annotation>
        <xs:complexContent>
            <xs:restriction base="mlhim2:DvQuantityType">
                <xs:sequence>
...

Which will identify this complexType as a Sodium level finding
according to SNOMED-CT.

My first question is:
1) is it correct to make the assumption that the annotation applies to
the enclosing complexType without using an rdf:about (or similar)
definition?

2) is rdfs:isDefinedBy the "tag" to use, or is something like
oa:SemanticTag a better choice?

Realizing that these annotations will not be reproduced in the
instance data.  The eco-system around this says that to determine the
full semantics you must have the schema associated with any instance
data.

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Tim



-- 
============================================
Timothy Cook, MSc           +55 21 94711995
MLHIM http://www.mlhim.org
Like Us on FB: https://www.facebook.com/mlhim2
Circle us on G+: http://goo.gl/44EV5
Google Scholar: http://goo.gl/MMZ1o
LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook
Received on Saturday, 2 March 2013 14:24:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 2 March 2013 14:24:11 GMT