Talk:Multiple Resources

--Robert Morris 00:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC) The method is conceptually appealing, but I'm having trouble seeing what the rdfs formal semantics might be.

Formal Semantics

Here's where I stumble over what might be the formal semantics of, for example, bodyComposition.

My problem is that this Multiple Resources proposal is expressed, sometimes, about display, not about formal semantics. (In these cases, I think the proposal is actually expressing - dare I say - an expectation on a consumer of the annotation, namely an expectation about display)

Let's consider the informal predicate "about" illustrated in the Introduction to the OA core data model as of 2012-05-09/. For discussion call it oa:about, so that we can write things like :theBody oa:about :theTarget. I would wish that in the face of multiple resources we could disambiguate which Body is oa:about which Target. But I think in the example for bodyComposition on [Multiple Resources], that no matter what the value of bodyComposition and no matter for which Body :B, we would want :B oa:about :theTarget. Now, in the face of a single Target and multiple Bodies, it's not too bothersome to have all of the Bodies be about the Target, but although it's not a different issue, the case for confusion might be easier to see when there are multiple Targets and multiple Bodies.

Probably something like the above problem applies more generally.

--Robert Morris 20:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)