W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > January 2005

'annotation' properties

From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:49:59 -0000
Message-ID: <F5839D944C66C049BDB45F4C1E3DF89D18DB55@exchange31.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

Mark wrote:
When I read the section "advanced annotations" I was a bit confused by
the term "annotation properties", because of OWL's "annotation
properties", maybe another name is more neutral?

What about 'documentation properties'?

Tom wrote:
8. I found myself stumbling over the phrase "Structured
   Value" as a label for object nodes which are themselves
   subjects of further assertions (i.e., which themselves
   have properties).  I recognize that this is due to the
   particular way "structured value" has been used over time
   in the context of DCMI.  Others without this historical
   baggage may not share this reaction.

   Querying Google for "'structured value' site:w3.org" yields
   a dozen or so hits from circa 1999 followed by the draft
   SKOS Core Guide.  Hmm...  One finds "structured property
   value" explained in, for example, the RDF Primer.  In the
   SKOS Core Guide, however, the notion of "structured value"
   is explained less in modeling terms than as a style of XML
   encoding ("Structured Value Usage Style").  This relates
   to the point in my previous posting about presenting the
   RDF/XML serialization syntax ahead of (or instead of)
   labeled directed graphs.

   In the DCMI context, Andy Powell et al have clarified
   the (quite different but historically related) issue of
   "Dublin Core structured values" by distinguishing between
   value representations with inherent structure -- e.g.,
   labelled strings, unlabelled strings, and marked-up text --
   as opposed to "related descriptions" (see Appendix A in
   [6]).  What the SKOS Guide calls a "structured value",
   then, is what the DCMI Abstract Model calls a "related
   resource description".  To my way of thinking, the phrase
   "related resource description" is more helpful.

   If the SKOS Guide is aimed at RDF-literate readers, the
   concept of "structured value" could perhaps be clarified
   by explaining first what is meant in modeling terms, citing
   the RDF Primer and possibly emphasizing that it is about
   describing a related resource.

   At any rate, glossing over the model for the sake of
   emphasizing syntax guidelines seems like a risky strategy
   -- a potential source of modeling errors on the part of
   readers looking for syntax recipes.

What about calling it 'blank node reference style' or 'resource reference
style usage'?  I'd also be quite happy with 'structured property value style
...' with a pointer to the RDF primer.

I'll do some diagrams to illustrate these, especially the 'blank node style'
or whatever we decide to call it.  Btw I had planned to do lots of node-arc
diagrams for the guide but didn't have time before the draft was submitted.
Always planned to do lots of node-arc diagrams.



Alistair Miles
Research Associate
CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Building R1 Room 1.60
Fermi Avenue
Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
United Kingdom
Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
Received on Monday, 24 January 2005 15:50:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:45:17 UTC