Re: F2F Decision: Context

On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Antoine Isaac <> wrote:

> Now of course this brings the case closer to dcterms:references, as Bob
> puts it [2]. I'm not so convinced either by asIncludedIn or annotatedIn.
> Would "scope" fit better? hasScope could draw a nice parallel hasSource.

I'm fine with hasScope. It's certainly better than context.

With the open world assumption, you can use asIncludedIn on any resource,
> and a reasoner would just infer that there must be an annotation somewhere
> for that resource.

I'm not sure that I follow.  With a domain of oa:SpecificResource, a
reasoner would conclude that the subject of the x hasScope y triple is a
SpecificResource.  Which is likely part of an Annotation, but not
necessarily (though would be outside our scope of work if it wasn't).

> Also, could there be that a same resource is body or target in two
> annotations, one for which the asIncludedIn statement is valid and the
> other not?

That's why we need the Specific Resource.  If (to cross threads) there was
just a Media Fragment, then that wouldn't work as the fragment URI could be
used in other annotations when the hasScope wasn't appropriate.  If the
Specific Resource was reused in a different annotation, it would have all
of the triples including hasScope.  If not all of them were true for the
new annotation, then you'd need to mint a new Specific Resource, in the
same way as if a State or Selector wasn't appropriate.

> If one wants to make it really specific to a certain annotation, then it
> probably needs to be *directly* related to the annotation resource (for a
> statement, this could be made via a named graph or reification).

But in turn wouldn't work for multiple resources as you couldn't tell which
resource was the actual subject of the hasScope.


Received on Thursday, 1 November 2012 14:56:56 UTC