Re: [web-annotation] Embedded Content

Hi Ray,

Apologies for the terminology confusion!  Punning in OWL takes various
forms, ironically.

But the result of the discussion is as you say -- that oa:hasBody can have
any resource identified by a URI or any literal value as its object.

Rob




On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov> wrote:

> Rob - can you clarify, "punning" property.  My understanding is that it a
> punning property is one  whose object can be either a resource or
> individual.   (An example of a  property whose object can be an individual
> would be oa:motivatedBy.)     But I thought the resolution was to allow the
> object of oa:hasBody to be either resource or literal (not individual),
> thus to allow oa:hasBody to be both an object and a data property.  If I am
> confused, my apologies, but please clarify.
>
> Thanks
>
> Ray
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rob Sanderson via GitHub [mailto:sysbot+gh@w3.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 6:48 PM
> > To: public-annotation@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: [web-annotation] Embedded Content
> >
> > Resolution from 2015-02-18 telcon was to keep the current model from
> > FPWD and to update the principles to state that inferencing is not a
> > significant design consideration, and thus the punning property is
> easier than
> > two separate properties.  Tagging as defer to facilitate tracking any
> further
> > reasons that might warrant re-opening the issue.
> >
> > --
> > GitHub Notif of comment by azaroth42
> > See
> > https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/3#issuecomment-74973945
> >
>
>


-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305