- From: Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>
- Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 22:36:03 +0100
- To: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
On Jan 6, 2013, at 10:00 PM, Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com> wrote:
> If I am not mistaken, OWL DL, at least, requires
Ah... OWL DL. I already suspected there were other arguments than those listed in the current spec :-)
To be frank, these limitations of OWL DL and the mess with dc:creator ranges _would_ be arguments that would convince me.
So what about the following line of reasoning:
1. Acknowledge that both approaches have there merits (remove the current arguments that suggest one would be better than the other)
2. Mention that allowing both on the same property could be confusing, and that in standards such as OWL DL, properties with both literal and object ranges are highly undesirable
3. That for simplicity sake we thus allow only object bodies
4 allowing bnode objects for those who do not need bodies with identity (see Antoine's arguments)
4. Give an example that is really only one extra triple, not the four extra triples I count in the current spec:
<Anno1> a oa:Annotation ;
oa:hasTarget <Target1> ;
oa:hasBody [ cnt:chars "content1" ] .
Would that be something?
Jacco
Received on Sunday, 6 January 2013 21:36:27 UTC