- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 19:05:01 +0100
- To: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
> Also, I think all the broadMatch can be replaced by broader: the semantic relations are embedded in the design of the concerned concepts, they are not post-ante reconciliation of concepts that were created in isolation. > > > Okay, so broader to oa:editing, but closeMatch to each other, yes? You mean new2:fixing skos:closeMatch new:correcting ? Yes! It could be exactMatch if you're certain that the correspondence is really precise. > > On comment 1: I agree for keeping oa:Motivation makes much sense. But part of my point was to get rid of the general oa:annotating concept. Asserting that a concept is narrower than oa:annotation doesn't had much information to asserting that this concept is a member of oa:motivationScheme, I think. > > > Sorry, I must have been asleep when either reading or writing, not sure which :) > > However, on this one, I just want to clarify that new motivations that are not broader to any of the existing instances would thus not have any broader relationship, and the oa:motivationScheme [note caps:)] would not have a topConcept. I'm not sure I understand this sentence, but... > So: > > xx:identifying a oa:Motivation ; > skos:inScheme xx:myMotivationScheme ; > skos:prefLabel "Identifying"@en . > > And the subclassing of oa:Motivation is sufficient. Yes, it should be. Antoine
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2013 19:54:23 UTC