Re: Class of an annotation body

Hi Ray,

> On 09 Mar 2015, at 16:29 , Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ivan -  definitely not (2).

I am happy we cleared that out:-)

> 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.
> 

I also saw your answer to Jacob. And I agree that this is, essentially, a best practice kind of issue, which is possible with the current OA model...

Thanks

Ivan


> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 


----
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