- From: Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 16:00:18 -0500
- To: Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>
- Cc: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
I agree that both are needed. I don't agree there is no problem. If I am not mistaken, OWL DL, at least, requires that data properties not be object properties, and if oa:hasBody is declared as both, then it is turned into two predicates with the same name. Surely this problem is not restricted to hasBody and all such properties would seem to have only these three solutions: 1. implicitly or explicitly duplicate such properties. 2. Take the possibility of an OWL DL representation of OA off the table (or any other ontology with such a restriction ) 3. Adopt some solution like Content in RDF, wherein hasBody remains an object property, and literals are hung off an object of standardized type. FWIW, some of dcmi-terms is a mess because of not treating this problem rigorously. Bob Morris On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl> wrote: > > On Jan 6, 2013, at 4:51 PM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: > >> "This model was chosen over having a literal as the Body directly for the following reasons:" >> I'm sorry, but I still don't buy most of the reasons. And I believe I won't be the only one… > > I fully agree with Antoine here. > > I think all arguments given in the document are very good arguments to argue for _allowing_ bodies to be URI resources for those who need them to be. I'm all for that. But I do not buy any of the arguments as a solid argument _disallowing_ literal texts as bodies for those who prefer them to be literals. > > I can see problems when you do not allow URI bodies. > I can see problems when you do not allow literal bodies. > But I cannot see what problems arise when you allow both. > > Jacco > > PS: "Representing Content in RDF 1.0" seems like a spec that is dead on arrival… is there any evidence it is not? > > -- Robert A. Morris Emeritus Professor of Computer Science UMASS-Boston 100 Morrissey Blvd Boston, MA 02125-3390 IT Staff Filtered Push Project Harvard University Herbaria Harvard University email: morris.bob@gmail.com web: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/ web: http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram === The content of this communication is made entirely on my own behalf and in no way should be deemed to express official positions of The University of Massachusetts at Boston or Harvard University.
Received on Sunday, 6 January 2013 21:00:49 UTC