Re: Updates to the DUV model diagram...

Dear Eric,

This is better, without the class duplicates.

Some comments on the diagram:

The diagram suggests that the properties
duv:hasDatasetUsage and duv:hasDistributionUsage have as domain the union of
dcat:Dataset and dcat:Distribution. (Because the arrow starts not in the
respective classes, but in the box surrounding them.)

Same with duv:hasDistributionUserFeedback and duv:hasDatasetUserFeedback.

Why not simplify these properties with only duv:hasUsage and
duv:hasUserFeedback and then have as domain always the union of dcat:Dataset
and dcat:Distribution?

Another namespace c4o is mentioned hereŠ was it ever used before? It is not
listed in the text.

About comments in annotations. The open annotation vocab says: ³Embedded
bodies SHOULD be instances of cnt:ContentAsText and embed their content with
cnt:chars. They SHOULD declare their media type with dc:format, and MAY
indicate their language using dc:language and a RFC-3066 language tag. There
is no OA class provided for "Body" as a body might be a target of a
different annotation. However, there SHOULD be 1 or more content-based
classes associated with the body resources of an Annotation, and the
dctypes: vocabulary is recommended for this purpose, for instance
dctypes:Text to declare textual content.²

Are we deviating from this recommendation in OA by using fabio:Comment?

By the way, According to fabio, Comment is a subclass of Expression, and
this relation is not shown in the diagram.

Regards,
João Paulo





From:  Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
Date:  Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 2:10 PM
To:  Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, Silvio Peroni
<silvio.peroni@unibo.it>, Bernadette Farias Loscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>,
"Purohit, Sumit" <sumit.purohit@pnnl.gov>, João Paulo Almeida
<jpalmeida@ieee.org>
Subject:  Updates to the DUV model diagram...

Joao Paulo - I took out redundant classes and reorganized the diagram. In
one case I used Phil's suggestion just to provide a literal property as a
part of the box.  Does this look correct?