W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > January 2013

Re: New Draft comments: Multiplicity

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:51:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CABevsUGUjePGE8RMNUncELEX=_fAheCkW7=eVK01dVhtfm9YDA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> Yes. Btw, just checking: is this (that the description of the construct
> should be the one of the annotation) specified in the spec?

It is now!

>>>>> 2. Mapping with RDF container classes.
>> I guess that I'm hesitant to promote Bag and Alt.  If we recommend
>> them and they go away, then we're in a mess.
>> I think the relationship between the OA and rdf classes is (now)
>> clear.  We should (must!) of course reassess this in any future
>> Working Group with the RDF 1.1 WG.
> Yes, and I think the best way not to forget about it is to note the subclass
> mapping :-)

In the description we now talk about "equivalent classes", but it's
not formalized.
Added this to the editor's note in oa:List.

> Even in the (really unlikely) case that Bag and Alt would be deprecated, it
> wouldn't hurt OA so much. We're just sub-classing these classes, not
> re-using them directly.

True, and adding the oa:default property to Choice I think is both
useful and helps justify the classes.

So ... I'm not against oa:Choice rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Alt and
oa:Composite rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Bag, but I am against it for
oa/rdf:List (as per previous reasoning).

Other opinions?

>>> By the way you could treat my suggestion for the axioms "bridging"
>>> between rdf:first/rdf:rest and oa:item.
>> Yes... it would reduce the number of mandatory triples, at the expense
>> of some additional client side processing.
>> I'm not sure that we have a good enough understanding of the field at
>> this stage to make a clear determination either way as to which is
>> better.
> I'd argue that mentioning the axioms is useful even if the data producers
> are the ones in charge of applying them...

Could you write up a paragraph or so for them? Agreed that it would be
good to be clear, and I'm not sure that I would do them justice.

>> I think that everyone is happy with an Editor's Note now and
>> re-assessing later if/when necessary?
> Yes, but I'm in favour of a quite complete Editor's note ;-)\

:)  Will fix based on the decision about subclassing Bag and Alt.

Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2013 16:52:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:38:21 UTC