W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > July 2012

Re: Literals as Body

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 09:30:22 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtn6EExOcq_2g+d9gY0FHbVV3HZCcwwdbFpWDwf1Cx-FyQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leyla Jael García Castro <leylajael@gmail.com>
Cc: Reto Bachmann-Gmür <reto@apache.org>, public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
The specification describes oa:hasBody as a "Relationship" rather than
a "Property".

OWL-wise this translates to Object Property (to a resource) and
Datatype Property (to a literal).


So my short answer is no, oa:hasBody must go to a resource, not a literal.


I think I have raised earlier that the RDFS definition should
clarifier this with light use of OWL.


http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/#Inline species how the
literal (at least string or bytes) can be represented using Content In
RDF.


On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Leyla Jael García Castro
<leylajael@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Reto,
>
> I think this is in some how related to another post in the group
> "AnnotationProperty vs ObjectProperty"... I do not know whether OA is
> modeled in OWL or RDF, I was looking for a link to the specification but I
> did not find it (any knows where is it?)
>
> From the other post, I dot this link
> http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/core-schema.xml (not sure if that
> corresponds to the last official release) and hasBody is defined as
>
> <rdf:Property rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/ns/openannotation/core/hasBody">
> <rdfs:domain
> rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/ns/openannotation/core/Annotation"/>
> <rdfs:comment>The relationship between Annotation and Body</rdfs:comment>
> <rdfs:isDefinedBy>
> <owl:Ontology rdf:about="http://www.w3..org/ns/openannotation/core/">
> <owl:versionInfo>core/20120509</owl:versionInfo>
> </owl:Ontology>
> </rdfs:isDefinedBy>
> <rdfs:label>hasBody</rdfs:label>
> </rdf:Property>
>
> As far as I understand, Body is not modeled by OA so it is open and can be
> any resource. If you model you plain text as an rdfs:Literal, the it is a
> resource so I guess your first option, the short one, is valid according to
> the specification. Any thoughts about it?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Leyla
>
> On Jul 20, 2012 11:02 PM, "Reto Bachmann-Gmür" <reto@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was wondering if
>>
>>     {
>>         "@type": "oax:Comment",
>>         "oa:hasBody" : "No longer persian cats but golden retrivers are
>> the favourite pets in San Jose.",
>>         "oa:hasTarget": "_doc"
>>     }
>>
>> is or should be allowed as a short form equivalent to
>>
>>     {
>>         "@type": "oax:Comment",
>>         "oa:hasBody" : {
>>                "dc:format": "text/plain",
>>                "cnt:chars": "No longer persian cats but golden retrivers
>> are the favourite pets in San Jose."
>>         },
>>         "oa:hasTarget": "_doc"
>>     }
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Reto



-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Monday, 23 July 2012 08:31:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:38:10 UTC