W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > August 2013

Re: Content in RDF

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 09:30:35 -0600
Message-ID: <CABevsUGp=Dbu5N_2jX-E_-fqohJ1cpUwqmXp6=jM5GiRkOk_Pg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Thanks Stian!

Rather than crowd their conference call with Open Annotators, the
issues that would be good to bring up:

* Your OWL issues

* Moving to a Recommendation or at least formalizing the status.
Currently it's a working draft ... but hasn't been touched in two
years so looks abandoned.  See the previous questions on the list
about whether we should just duplicate it. It would be very nice to
have it formalized so this becomes a non-issue.

* cnt:chars vs cnt:characterEncoding -- consistency in naming would be
good. Also dtDecl vs doctypeName, and dtDecl vs declaredEncoding.
Either abbreviate or not, but be consistent.

* Best practices would be appreciated. For example XML can be
represented either as ContentAsText or ContentAsXML.  We do
ContentAsText for ease as the mime type can be used to determine
whether it is XML or not.  Even just a discussion about why
ContentAsXML is useful at all would be nice?

Thanks again!

Rob



On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
<soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> They have a meeting on the 21st which I'll call into. - Content in RDF
> is one of the items on the agenda.
>
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/
>
> On 16 August 2013 15:34, Stian Soiland-Reyes
> <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Hi, I see in June we agreed:
>>
>> Action Item: The OA Community should talk to the CNT Community once
>> the question of moving OA into a W3C Working Group has been resolved.
>>
>>
>> Did anything happen with that? I am trying to use Content in RDF from
>> Jena, but I ran into a problem because their Datatype properties are
>> declared as ObjectProperties!
>>
>>
>> From http://www.w3.org/2011/content#
>>
>>
>>         <rdf:Property rdf:ID="chars">
>>                 <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#ContentAsText" />
>>                 <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">Character sequence</rdfs:label>
>>                 <rdfs:comment xml:lang="en">The character sequence of
>> the text content.</rdfs:comment>
>>                 <rdfs:range
>> rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Literal" />
>>                 <rdf:type
>> rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#ObjectProperty" />
>>         </rdf:Property>
>>
>> This means that the property is both a datatype property (pointing to
>> a literal) and an ObjectProperty (pointing to a resource) - which is
>> odd and not even valid OWL punning. It would not make sense to have
>> cnt:chars <someURI> because then you no longer have the Content in the
>> RDF.
>>
>> This was not a problem in http://www.w3.org/2008/content (which did
>> not OWL-type the properties) - so it seems like it was introduced by
>> accident.
>>
>> --
>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
>> School of Computer Science
>> The University of Manchester
>> http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work/ http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
> http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work/ http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>
Received on Monday, 19 August 2013 15:31:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:38:23 UTC