- From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:33:14 -0600
- To: Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
It's listed but indeed not modeled: <rdf:Property rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/ns/openannotation/core/equivalent"> <rdfs:comment>The subject and object resources of the oa:equivalent relationship represent the same resource, but potentially have different metadata such as generator, generated and serialization format. oa:equivalent is a symmetrical relationship; if A oa:equivalent B, then it is also true that B oa:equivalent A. </rdfs:comment> <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/ns/openannotation/core/"/> <rdfs:label>equivalent</rdfs:label> </rdf:Property> I'm not sure *how* it would be modeled though. A suggestion was raised to get rid of equivalent and recommend either skos:exactMatch or skos:closeMatch. How do people feel about these three options? Rob On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com> wrote: > As far as I can tell, oa:equivalent is not modeled in > http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/core-schema.xml as of this > date. > > I suppose this will fall in Stian's volunteer effort, because the > formal semantics of "The subject and object resources of the > oa:equivalent relationship represent the same Annotation" will > require some notion of "same" for instances, e.g. owl:sameAs. At > the moment, it is unclear to me how one can specify formal semantics > that would restrict oa:equivalent to its intended use, i.e. where > Target and Body have identical URIs, which is what Figure 2.4 of the > core spec seems to be suggesting. > > > Robert A. Morris > > Emeritus Professor of Computer Science > UMASS-Boston > 100 Morrissey Blvd > Boston, MA 02125-3390 > > IT Staff > Filtered Push Project > Harvard University Herbaria > Harvard University > > email: morris.bob@gmail.com > web: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/ > web: http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush > http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram > === > The content of this communication is made entirely on my > own behalf and in no way should be deemed to express > official positions of The University of Massachusetts at Boston or > Harvard University.
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 19:33:42 UTC