- From: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 14:08:46 -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: <CAMFz4jiOZrQ2uvcgih-UBcL4+Bz7TqyS8xkKfNBi7=7-1tA4sA@mail.gmail.com>
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 >> >> >
Received on Sunday, 17 January 2016 22:09:14 UTC