Re: multiple bodies and motivations

Hi Rob,

If I understand correctly we would extend the domain of oa:hasMotivation to
include oa:SpecificResource.

Does doping this change the semantics of specific resources? For instance,
can I also have motivations for targets? Would I be able to have one
motivation for the annotation itself while having separate motivations for
each specific resource that is part of its graph?

Regards,

Jacob


_____________________________________________________
Jacob Jett
Research Assistant
Center for Informatics Research in Science and Scholarship
The Graduate School of Library and Information Science
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
501 E. Daniel Street, MC-493, Champaign, IL 61820-6211 USA
(217) 244-2164
jjett2@illinois.edu

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Thanks all for this great discussion!
>
> I agree that it can't be a class on the Body (or Target) -- that's the
> issue we solved with the change to the Semantic Tag construction.  The
> class would be a global assertion, whereas the body may have different
> roles in different annotations.
>
> Multiple annotations is a possibility, but there's a lot of situations
> where you want to keep all of the bodies together (such as export from a
> bookmarking system, like Firefox, where there's both comments and tags
> together).
>
> To add another option into the mix...
>
> Could we simply allow, but not require, hasMotivation to be added to the
> SpecificResource class?
> Then if it's important to have body-specific motivations, then the model
> allows it without introducing any new predicates or nodes, but the majority
> of annotations can just have it associated with the Annotation itself, as
> per the current model.
>
> Thus add the possibility for the pattern:
>
> <> a oa:Annotation ;
>   oa:hasBody _:sp1, _:sp2 ;
>   oa:hasTarget <some-uri> .
>
> _:sp1 a oa:SpecificResource ;
>   oa:hasMotivation oa:commenting ;
>   ... .
>
> _:sp2 a oa:SpecificResource ;
>   oa:hasMotivation oa:tagging ;
>   ... .
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Rob
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu> wrote:
>
>> Right. And because the roles of bodies in an annotation relative to the
>> targets in that same annotation are contingent on interpretation and
>> context I think that it's beyond the scope of our model to remark on them
>> beyond what the model already says, i.e., whatever is at the body node is
>> playing the role of the body in the annotation. I don't know what more we
>> might say that wouldn't actually begin to interfere with annotation
>> interoperability.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jacob
>>
>>
>> _____________________________________________________
>> Jacob Jett
>> Research Assistant
>> Center for Informatics Research in Science and Scholarship
>> The Graduate School of Library and Information Science
>> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>> 501 E. Daniel Street, MC-493, Champaign, IL 61820-6211 USA
>> (217) 244-2164
>> jjett2@illinois.edu
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> “there is very little we can realistically do to mandate how specific
>>> communities will make extensions for use cases that are outside of the
>>> annotation model.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Right, we can’t mandate interoperability.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But I don’t understand the part about outside the annotation model.  If
>>> it’s an annotation outside the model then it is out of scope for us anyway,
>>> right?  Anything we spec would pertain to annotations within the model,
>>> right?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ray
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* jgjett@gmail.com [mailto:jgjett@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Jacob
>>> Jett
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:34 PM
>>> *To:* Web Annotation
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: multiple bodies and motivations
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -1 for this. I think it's already well-documented in practice on how to
>>> extend vocabularies. We've been doing it for decades with xml.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also, there is very little we can realistically do to mandate how
>>> specific communities will make extensions for use cases that are outside of
>>> the annotation model. Since there isn't any mandate that annotation
>>> consumers understand community specific specializations of the annotation
>>> model, its highly likely that specialized predicates and extraneous typing
>>> or graph nodes will probably be ignored by the consumer.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jacob
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____________________________________________________
>>>
>>> Jacob Jett
>>> Research Assistant
>>> Center for Informatics Research in Science and Scholarship
>>> The Graduate School of Library and Information Science
>>> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>>> 501 E. Daniel Street, MC-493, Champaign, IL 61820-6211 USA
>>> (217) 244-2164
>>> jjett2@illinois.edu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>> Depends what is meant by “spec any of this”.  The model should specify
>>> or at least recommend how this should be done.  The actual extensions
>>> should be developed by the interested communities.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So how is a role conveyed? There are three possibilities:
>>>
>>> 1.       Intermediate resource
>>>
>>> 2.       Via property
>>>
>>> 3.       Via class
>>>
>>> If the body is an RDF resource than a property works fine. But if it is,
>>> say, an image, it doesn’t.  So a role property won’t work for all cases. I
>>> think that classing bodies will work for some of the cases.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In any case the model should provide guidance.  It could say, for
>>> example, use a role property if possible; if not, use a class, if
>>> appropriate; if not, create an intermediate resource.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ray
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Randall Leeds [mailto:randall@bleeds.info]
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:11 PM
>>> *To:* Denenberg, Ray; Web Annotation
>>>
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: multiple bodies and motivations
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So is there any need for us to spec any of this or should we just leave
>>> it to the communities to start experimenting with roles on their bodies?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:25 PM Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, it is recognized (and was mentioned this morning) that the
>>> annotation itself has  a primary motivation, which is to be expressed as a
>>> property of the annotation.   * But *I don’t agree with the suggestion
>>> if there are multiple bodies with different motivations then these should
>>> be expressed as multiple annotations.  I think perhaps these may be “roles”
>>> rather than motivations, i.e., what role is a body playing in the
>>> annotation.  There have been a number of use cases calling for multiple
>>> bodies, where different bodies play different roles, and where creating
>>> separate annotations for each body would not be work.  The intermediate
>>> resource solves the problem, but as you note, it complicates the model.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And of course (to address Jacob’s point) this would be left to
>>> individual communities to develop in the form of extensions.  There is no
>>> suggestion intended that we try to develop the entire taxonomy among
>>> ourselves.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ray
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Randall Leeds [mailto:randall@bleeds.info]
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 18, 2015 2:41 PM
>>> *To:* Jacob Jett; Denenberg, Ray
>>> *Cc:* Web Annotation
>>> *Subject:* Re: multiple bodies and motivations
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> More or less +1 to Jacob.
>>>
>>> Other concerns are the open world problem of assigning motivations to
>>> the body, which may be a resource owned by a different authority than the
>>> annotation and a semantic issue that the motivation is really a motivation
>>> for involving the body in the annotation activity rather than a motivation
>>> for the existence of the body resource itself.
>>>
>>> It seems like the most conceptually sound way to handle it would be to
>>> have an intermediate resource. That definitely complicates the model.
>>>
>>> I think it was suggested in GitHub that perhaps even if the bodies have
>>> different purposes the annotation itself has a primary, over-arching
>>> motivation and if it seems like there are multiple perhaps multiple
>>> annotations is more appropriate.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:12 AM Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Ray,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My question would be, are we conflating motivation with structural
>>> implications? That a thing is a tag seems to me to say more about its
>>> intrinsic nature, i.e., a tag is a sort snippet of text, a semantic tag is
>>> a named entity, rather than the role it plays in the annotation. That being
>>> said I do think that there is likely room in the model for a motivation (or
>>> more properly a role) property on the body.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We may want to be cautious here because there will likely be cases where
>>> the role a body plays in an annotation is sensitive to the environment the
>>> annotation finds itself in. In some environments some text might be
>>> explaining the target and in others it might be describing it. Since the
>>> model is extensible it might be best to leave it to individual communities
>>> to develop value added extensions particular to their annotation
>>> repositories rather than try to develop an over-arching taxonomy of body
>>> types that will likely be incomplete.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jacob
>>>
>>>
>>> _____________________________________________________
>>>
>>> Jacob Jett
>>> Research Assistant
>>> Center for Informatics Research in Science and Scholarship
>>> The Graduate School of Library and Information Science
>>> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>>> 501 E. Daniel Street, MC-493, Champaign, IL 61820-6211 USA
>>> (217) 244-2164
>>> jjett2@illinois.edu
>>>
>>>
>>> _____________________________________________________
>>>
>>> Jacob Jett
>>> Research Assistant
>>> Center for Informatics Research in Science and Scholarship
>>> The Graduate School of Library and Information Science
>>> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>>> 501 E. Daniel Street, MC-493, Champaign, IL 61820-6211 USA
>>> (217) 244-2164
>>> jjett2@illinois.edu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>> We ran out of time while I was on-Q so I’ll carry my thoughts to email.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The issue is multiple bodies with multiple motivations. In the model
>>> currently,   a  motivation, applies to the entire annotation. How do you
>>>  associate a motivation with a  body.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems to me that a straightforward approach is for each body to have
>>> a class  (with implied motivation).   Someone mentioned, if it’s a tag, you
>>> know it’s a tag. If it’s a sematic tag, you know it’s a semantic tag.  How
>>> do you know? Because the body is classed as oa:Tag or oa:SemanticTag.   So
>>> it works for those two, why wouldn’t that work in general?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ray
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Rob Sanderson
> Information Standards Advocate
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305
>