- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 11:08:17 +0000
- To: Leyla Jael García Castro <leylajael@gmail.com>
- Cc: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>, public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Leyla Jael García Castro <leylajael@gmail.com> wrote: > I am confused now, again :-( I understood that oa:[SemanticTag] would be > similar to oa:Tag and both could be applied for either resources or specific > resources. I do not see why it would be a subclass of oa:SpecificResource. Yes, I think what you suggest is a better solution. So what I proposed was to let oa:Tag and the section in chapter 2 stay as it is, but any hints of semantic tagging point forward to a new section under Specific Resources. I would perhaps introduce oa:SemanticTag as subclass of both oa:Tag and oa:SemanticResource. A SemanticTag SHOULD NOT have state or selectors (hence a subclass), but indicates that the oa:hasSource is the URI of the semantic tag. I think state/selectors would be confusing, otherwise we could simply say that if the oa:SemanticResource is a oa:Tag it's OK. With a SemanticTag subclass we leave it open if someone makes a different kind of combination of oa:Tag and oa:SemanticResource. (Perhaps they want to show the selector of where a textual tag was found). However this would allow the use of a oa:SemanticTag also as a target. Perhaps this is OK, and my oa:hasBody was just oa:commenting about <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Paris> as a concept (the city) rather than as a resource (the entry and knowledge present in dbpedia). -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 11:09:04 UTC