Re: Last draft comment: Core

In my opinion It does not, I could say:

ex:anno a oa:Annotation ;
   oa:hasTarget <http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/> ;
   oa:hasBody ex:uuid ;
   oa:hasBody <http://example.org/resource/interoperability>;
   oa:motivatedBy oa:bookmarking ;
   oa:annotatedBy ex:person1 ;
   oa:annotatedAt "2012-02-12T15:02:14Z" ;
   oa:serializedBy ex:software1 ;
   oa:serializedAt "2012-02-12T15:02:14Z" .

ex:uuid a cnt:ContentAsText ;
   cnt:chars "Official Page of the Open Annotation Community Group" ;
   dc:format "text/plain" ;
   cnt:characterEncoding "utf-8" .

<http://example.org/resource/interoperability> a oa:Tag.

The motivation is bookmarking, the tag is there to help the retrieval of
the bookmark.
The type oa:Tag is classifying the URI as 'semantic tag'.

This is basically reflecting  the kind of bookmarks I can create with
Firefox.



On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> On 2/4/13 2:06 AM, Paolo Ciccarese wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>      > 4. Mapping to Dublin Core in 2.2
>>      > In an earlier version oa:annotatedBy (resp. oa:annotatedAt,
>> oa:serializedBy)
>>      > was mapped to dcterms:creator (resp. dcterms:created,
>> dcterms:publisher. I'm
>>      > not sure why these mappings were removed, as they seem quite right
>> and the
>>      > mapping to PROV does not really replace them.
>>
>>     The decision was to remove them, I don't recall the exact rationale,
>>     other than to try to stick more closely to W3C standards where ever
>>     possible, and to not confuse the matter by having multiple mappings.
>>
>>
>> That was the reason I recall. And I would still be of the same advice.
>>
>>
>>
>>      > 5. Relation between oa:semanticTagging and oa:tagging in 2.3
>>
>>      > I support Stian's interrogation (and his implicit proposal) at
>>      > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-openannotation/**
>> 2013Feb/0002.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openannotation/2013Feb/0002.html>
>>      > "oa:semanticTagging is skos:narrowerThan (?) oa:tagging"
>>      > The spec should reflect that
>>      > oa:semanticTagging skos:narrower oa:tagging
>>      > otherwise it may be difficult to convince implementers to create
>> semantic
>>      > relations for their motivation extensions.
>>
>>     Sure. The more broadly usable motivations with clear use cases in the
>>     spec rather than having to be defined elsewhere, the better.
>>
>>
>> Wasn't Stian also mentioning some constraints:
>> "This means that in this semantic tagging I can't also include oa:hasBody
>> to "classic" bodies."
>>
>> Do we consider those valid?
>> Figure 2.1.3.2. Semantic Tag is based on oa:tagging
>> I feel more explanations are needed for oa:semanticTagging.
>>
>
>
> Yes I'm also not so sure about all this. As I pointed out yesterday (
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-openannotation/**
> 2013Feb/0019.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openannotation/2013Feb/0019.html>)
> I don't understand why the current semantic tagging pattern would disallow
> including "classic" bodies next to semantic tags.
>
> Antoine.
>
>