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 14:26:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CABevsUGFSTLywtpL4T99iTJOsLziHoLH7_ky2rbQMpuTXAvjpg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

>>>>>>> 2. Mapping with RDF container classes.
>>>> I guess that I'm hesitant to promote Bag and Alt.
>>> 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",
> Note: as you put it below, Alt and Bag should not be equivalent classes to
> Choice and Composite.

Yes, not in the OWL sense.

>>> 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.
> Editor's note: an algorithm to automatically derive oa:item statements from

If we can get this finalized, I would like it to be just part of the
specification rather than an editor's note.  I think it's valuable to

> the rdf:first/rdf:list pattern could be:
>  1. Create a statement [l oa:item i .] for every statement [l rdf:first i .]

Shouldn't there ever only be one rdf:first per rdf:List?

>  2. Create a statement [l oa:item i .] for every chain of statements [l
> rdf:rest r . r oa:item i .] until no new statement can be created.

Doesn't this imply that rdf:nil is also an oa:item of the List?  Can
we avoid that?

Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2013 21:27:16 UTC

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