- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 09:57:29 +0100
- To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-openannotation@w3.org
I agree on a minimalist approach and think the schemas shown reflect that. However some facts stated in the specification is not reflected in the schema, for instance: oa:annotator Relationship [subProperty of dcterms:creator] oa:annotated Property [subProperty of dcterms:created] oa:generator Relationship [subProperty of dcterms:publisher] oa:generated Property [subProperty of dcterms:issued] OK, so I might not think that these subproperties are always a good match - but if we say so in the specification, then why should not the RDFS schema also reflect this with rdfs:subPropertyOf ? The use of RDFS without any OWL means it is very difficult to see if something is an object property or data property, and it all comes out as "annotation properties" in Protege unless the rdfs:range has been given. For instance I can't see from this schema if I should do: :ann1 a ao:Annotation ; oa:annotator <http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/#me> . or :ann1 a ao:Annotation ; oa:annotator "Stian Soiland-Reyes" . Without specifying this properly, you will get a lovely mix. See Dublin Core. I don't think additional OWL properties should confuse any RDFS tools - as long as the RDFS bits are there as well. On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > If you have a moment, please check out the schema files for both the > core and extension models. > > http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/core-schema.xml > http://www.openannotation.org/spec/extension/extension-schema.xml > > Before we put them up on the W3C site (which takes a bit more effort) > > Many thanks, > > Rob > -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Monday, 25 June 2012 08:58:23 UTC