- From: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:09:21 -0500
- To: Leyla Jael García Castro <leylajael@gmail.com>
- Cc: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-openannotation@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAFPX2kDLRLBRh+m99TF+erjmT7zaJE6ACW0mjqr+W7ewVVBN3Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Leyla Jael García Castro < leylajael@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Paolo Ciccarese >> <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> 2. (Antoine) Use a oa:SemanticTag class, with foaf:primaryTopicOf. >> >> Object from Rob: it's inverse functional, so the same document >> >> couldn't be used for different semantic concepts. As the URI for the >> >> tag resource is likely going to be a UUID or a blank node, this could >> >> have unfortunate repercussions. >> > >> > -1 The 'inverse functional' constraint is too restrictive >> > >> >> 3. (Rob) Use oa:SemanticTag class, with foaf:page. This is the same >> >> as 2. but with a looser predicate that isn't functional. >> > >> > The last one is compact, does not interfere with other constructs, >> gives a >> > little structure without too much commitment, is more declarative. >> >> :) >> > > +1 > > >> >> > And I like how it reads for cases in which the URI is actually a page or >> > HTML document >> > ex:semtag a oa:SemanticTag ; >> > foaf:page <http://omim.org/entry/104760> . >> > The inverse I think also makes sense: >> > <http://omim.org/entry/104760> foaf:topic ex:semtag >> >> I think so too. >> >> > However, for URis such as the DBpedia ones, are we still planning to do: >> > <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Eiffel_Tower> a oa:SemanticTag. ? >> > or to adopt the above model? >> >> Good question! >> >> Stian brought this up. I don't think that there are any conflicts, >> because oa:SemanticTag when it really is a concept URI just states >> that. >> But I'm willing to be wrong! The class is really about the >> *identifier* not the *identified object*. >> >> For example, would clients be confused if they saw an Annotation that >> targeted a resource, say the dbpedia URI for Paris, and the RDF >> claimed that Paris was of class oa:SemanticTag ? I think this >> actually *helps*, as the client would know not to dereference the URI >> looking for a document. But perhaps we could have a better name for >> the class? >> > > I like the current name SemanticTag. I also think is ok. > > Leyla > > +1 I like it to be explicit by declaring oa:SemantiTag Paolo
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 21:09:48 UTC