Re: Best Practices - Semantic Tagging

Dear Tim,
in general, the OA model is meant to be used for achieving interoperability
(between systems).
Also it is normally used for defining instances of data and not for
meta-modelling.

In other words, as we are in the realm of XMLSchema and as your annotation
is not going to be reproduced in instances of data I would *personally* not
bother too much with the OA concept of annotation.

I would probably  do something similar to what you did or I would find some
other term that clearly states that the value is 'of topic' that specific
URI (some sort of range).

Alternative would be:
<xs:annotation>
      <xs:appinfo>
               <oa:semanticTag>

is a bit of a stretch.

Best,
Paolo





On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Timothy W. Cook <timothywayne.cook@gmail.com
> wrote:

> HI All,
>
> Though I have read virtually everything I can find related to this
> subject; including:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openannotation/2013Feb/0051.html
>
> I really don't see the answer to my question.
>
> First of all this is a "green field" area.  I do not have to be
> concerned with existing documents and how it has been done in the
> past.
>
> I just want to get this right, the first time. Given all the
> experience from people here.
>
> Scenario:
>
> I have XML Schemas that define data instance structures (as usual).
> These schemas use a lot of complexTypes that are restrictions from a
> base schema.  Since each base schema complexType can be represented in
> a schema multiple times with different restrictions, I use a UUID
> based name. For example:
>
>   <xs:complexType name="ct-f6c5ea6e-6458-4799-874d-7f3d365d260d">
>         <xs:complexContent>
>             <xs:restriction base="mlhim2:DvQuantityType">
>                 <xs:sequence>
>
> ...
>
> These complexTypes are almost always definable via a controlled
> vocabulary, ex. SNOMED-CT
>
> In order to add semantics to the complexType definition my current
> thought is to use:
>
>   <xs:complexType name="ct-f6c5ea6e-6458-4799-874d-7f3d365d260d">
>     <xs:annotation>
>       <xs:appinfo>
>         <rdfs:isDefinedBy
> rdfs:resource="http://purl.bioontology.org/ontology/SNOMEDCT/365761000"/>
>       </xs:appinfo>
>     </xs:annotation>
>         <xs:complexContent>
>             <xs:restriction base="mlhim2:DvQuantityType">
>                 <xs:sequence>
> ...
>
> Which will identify this complexType as a Sodium level finding
> according to SNOMED-CT.
>
> My first question is:
> 1) is it correct to make the assumption that the annotation applies to
> the enclosing complexType without using an rdf:about (or similar)
> definition?
>
> 2) is rdfs:isDefinedBy the "tag" to use, or is something like
> oa:SemanticTag a better choice?
>
> Realizing that these annotations will not be reproduced in the
> instance data.  The eco-system around this says that to determine the
> full semantics you must have the schema associated with any instance
> data.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
> Tim
>
>
>
> --
> ============================================
> Timothy Cook, MSc           +55 21 94711995
> MLHIM http://www.mlhim.org
> Like Us on FB: https://www.facebook.com/mlhim2
> Circle us on G+: http://goo.gl/44EV5
> Google Scholar: http://goo.gl/MMZ1o
> LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook
>
>


-- 
Dr. Paolo Ciccarese
http://www.paolociccarese.info/
Biomedical Informatics Research & Development
Instructor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School
Assistant in Neuroscience at Mass General Hospital
Member of the MGH Biomedical Informatics Core
+1-857-366-1524 (mobile)   +1-617-768-8744 (office)

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the addressee(s),
may contain information that is considered
to be sensitive or confidential and may not be forwarded or disclosed to
any other party without the permission of the sender.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately.