- From: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 14:06:20 -0800
- To: Silvio Peroni <silvio.peroni@unibo.it>
- Cc: João Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, Bernadette Farias Loscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>, "Purohit, Sumit" <sumit.purohit@pnnl.gov>
- Message-ID: <CAMFz4jj+ztJaeM0+1M2C39mJBCwri8z+XBgDSEji6kh9aK-wJg@mail.gmail.com>
Thank you both for your comments. Because the model has been adjusted I have not applied changes to the vocabulary document. At this point I feel the model is stabled enough to make changes to the document. Thank you for the vocabulary references and I will update the document to reflect your references. See my comments below.... Thanks, Eric S On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Silvio Peroni <silvio.peroni@unibo.it> wrote: > Hi Eric, Joao, all > > Dr Peroni - Your guidance has been wonderful and I hope I incorporated all > the corrections you previously mentioned. I have a question regarding the > stability of some of the vocabularies we are using. Are any of these > vocabularies still evolving (e.g. c4o)? > > > All the SPAR Ontologies (http://www.sparontologies.net), including C4O, > are pretty stable right now. The only think that may happen in the future > is that I can extend them we now terms. In addition, C4O was one of the > first ontologies we have developed, since it concerns citation contexts > > Ok > About the diagram: there are still few issues. Here my corrections: > - oa:hasMotivation from duv:UserFeedback to oa:Motivation should be > oa:motivatedBy; > - c4o:hasComment must be changed in c4o:hasContent; > - rdfs:literal should be rdfs:Literal. > > Yes thank you for these corrections. > In addition, I would suggest to change the organisation of fabio:Comment > in a similar way to the other classes, i.e., the property c4o:hasContent > should be placed on an arrow having fabio:Comment as starting point and > rdfs:Literal has ending point. > > This is not so easy. At the request, of comments from the WG, I removed all redundant classes and it was suggested by the WG that as an alternative to showing redundant classes I put properties inside the class. To make this approach not appearing odd for one class, I used this same approach to declare a rdfs:label rdfs:Literal property for classes duv:Usage and duv:UsageTool. > I suppose that only the diagram has been changed since the actual text of > the document is not align to it. Is it right? > > Yes this is correct, to save time and effort I want to resolve all comments in the model before synchronizing the remainder of the document. > Answering to Joao: > > Another namespace c4o is mentioned here… was it ever used before? It is > not listed in the text. > > > > Even other prefixes (e.g., biro) are not listed as well, but I think this > is due to the fact that the text has not been aligned to the diagram yet. > BTW, the prefixes for the ontologies I’ve introduced are: > > biro: http://purl.org/spar/biro/ > c4o: http://purl.org/spar/c4o/ > cito: http://purl.org/spar/cito/ > fabio: http://purl.org/spar/fabio/ > > About comments in annotations. The open annotation vocab says: “Embedded > 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.” > > Are we deviating from this recommendation in OA by using fabio:Comment? > > > Thanks Joao for spotting this. The use of fabio:Comment is one of the > possibility I’ve proposed to Eric my past email, with the other alternative > I’ve suggested, introduced in the following link, which is along the line > of the description in the OA vocab: > > http://www.sparontologies.net/ontologies/cito#cito_2 > > As said, the use of fabio:Comment is just a possible way of modelling that > (where implicitly all the instance of fabio:Comment are seen as a pure > textual content of a comment). However, I’m fine with using the way > suggested by Joao, since it is actually what the OA spec suggest, i.e.: > > :annotation a oa:Annotation; > oa:motivatedBy oa:commenting ; > oa:hasBody :comment ; > oa:hasTarget :citation-act . > > :comment a cnt:ContentAsText ; > cnt:chars "I'm citing that paper because it > initiated this whole new field of research." . > > :citation-act a cito:CitationAct; > cito:hasCitingEntity :paper-a ; > cito:hasCitedEntity :paper-b . > > I really prefer this approach to using cnt:ContentAsText. I'm switching to this new proposed approach using RDF Content working draft: https://www.w3.org/TR/Content-in-RDF10/ > What do you think? > > > Have a nice day :-) > > S. > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Silvio Peroni, Ph.D. > Department of Computer Science and Engineering > University of Bologna, Bologna (Italy) > Tel: +39 051 2094871 > E-mail: silvio.peroni@unibo.it > Web: http://www.essepuntato.it > Twitter: essepuntato > >
Received on Sunday, 17 January 2016 22:06:49 UTC