- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 16:26:51 +0100
- To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Cc: Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com>, public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote: > 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? +1 to avoid yet another equivalence notion! However, what do we need it for? For mirroring annotations? I would question whether such annotations are equivalent or even close match - because it could have later change upstream or even where it is now. It is more like it has been derived? I would use prov:wasQuotedFrom from PROV-O (it's like a full quote), combined with prov:alternateOf to show that they were somewhat interchangeable at the time. In PAV we have pav:retrievedFrom (with pav:retrievedOn and pav:retrievedBy for details about when it was retrieved, by who) <!-- http://purl.org/pav/retrievedFrom --> > The URI where a resource has been retrieved from. > Retrieval indicates that this resource has the same representation as the original resource. If the resource has been somewhat transformed, use pav:importedFrom instead. > The time of the retrieval should be indicated using pav:retrievedOn. The agent may be indicated with pav:retrievedBy. which sounds like a perfect fit for this purpose. It is quite more specific. I've not yet gone through PAV to make it subclass/property PROV, but that should be doable. (although property chains might be needed for some of them!) -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2012 15:27:39 UTC