RE: Class of an annotation body

Hi Ivan -  definitely not (2).   I'm simply talking about the case where a body needs to be structured, necessitating properties and therefore a class.  I'm not concerned with constraints, i.e. domains and ranges. I hope the example I posted (a few minutes ago) makes it more clear. 

Ray 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 3:57 PM
> To: Denenberg, Ray
> Cc: W3C Public Annotation List
> Subject: Re: Class of an annotation body
> 
> Ray,
> 
> I am not sure what you mean.
> 
> (1) Do you mean to define a number of additional RDF Classes, so that a body
> can be 'classified'? Your example for tags is a typical case. RDF(S) gives
> classification, subclass/superclass relationships, and possibly the usage of
> rdf:domain and rdf:range for some properties (although the usage of domain
> and range may be dangerous because its semantics is usually misunderstood).
> 
> (2) Do you mean to define a number of additional OWL Classes, so that the
> body can not only be classified but a number of constraints can be added on
> the properties on classes, ie, possibly, contradictions can be detected?
> 
> I do not see any problem with the (1). It may help some applications to have
> such a classification, and the sub/superclass relationships are easy to keep
> track of in an application, too.
> 
> (2), however, is a totally different ballgame. It would require the usage of
> OWL both in terms of authoring and in terms of usage in applications. Given
> the complexity of OWL and the expected audience for annotation application
> developers, I would try to keep away from those (although it is of course
> possible for a specific application or domain to define those classes, if
> needed).
> 
> However, for both (1) and (2) I believe the current OA model is fairly silent on
> whether additional classes are defined. It is perfectly possible to do so, but
> the model does not talk about it; and I believe that is the proper choice.
> 
> However... I may completely misunderstand what you intend to do. An
> example would be good.
> 
> Ivan
> 
> > On 09 Mar 2015, at 15:05 , Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov> wrote:
> >
> > In the OA data model, there is no general RDF Class defined for the body.
> But that doesn’t mean that the body cannot have an RDF class, for certain
> typesoa:SemanticTag.   (Those are the only two I can think of from the model,
> maybe there are others I missed.)
> >
> > There is at least one use case that calls for a structured body and thus an
> RDF Class (Structured Review:  http://www.w3.org/TR/dpub-annotation-

> uc/#comment-on-publication-title).   And it also seems that there is a certain
> amount of hand-waving that suggests that bodies are going to need to be
> structured in many cases but I don’t think we have had direct discussion of
> this.
> >
> > I am in the process of developing a use case along these lines and would
> like opinions on whether this approach is seen to be legitimate orcontroversy.
> >
> > Ray
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/

> mobile: +31-641044153
> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704

> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 9 March 2015 20:30:27 UTC