Re: Updates to the DUV model diagram...

Oh and please only refer to the picture in the document below:

http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html

Please note that although the RDF content carries the cnt, it is still a
part of the rdf vocab and so I left the color of the box "white" for the
class.

Thanks,

Eric S

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>