W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > February 2013

Re: annotations and RDF

From: (wrong string) čius <martynas@graphity.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 15:52:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CAE35Vmxw=2jiUKC8YAC5aHTtMDq8izVP4bLETap7_hMzVopcDQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matteo Casu <mattecasu@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Matteo,

if you want annotations interleaving with text, maybe you could use
RDFa? Here's one of the first "RDFa annotations" Google hits:
http://www.aclweb.org/anthology-new/R/R11/R11-2008.pdf

Martynas
graphity.org

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Matteo Casu <mattecasu@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you Robert!
>
> I've just seen what I think is the new draft (february 5th). I will go through it! In the meantime, I'm wondering what you think on the problem of keeping all the annotations of a text in RDF vs. keeping them in a separate store and bind them to entities in the RDF.
>
> The use case I have in mind is: imagine a book, say The Lord of the Rings. Assume we want to annotate domain information in RDF (characters, actions, etc..) as well as linguistic (or "librarian")-oriented annotations: paragraphs, lines, pages (in order to make citations..), down to lemmas and so on..
>
> We could follow the FRBR model and keep in an RDF graph the domain information AND some librarian information. But what about the annotations on text as -- say -- links between a character and the lines on which they appear?Should these be RDF statements? What about the the problem of text duplications in annotations which are not independent (e.g. lemmas and sentences)?
> Have you (as a community) a definite idea on this issue or perhaps is something which is still under observation?
>
>
>
>
> Il giorno 04/feb/2013, alle ore 21:37, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>> Hi Matteo,
>>
>> The Annotation Ontology has merged with Open Annotation Collaboration
>> in the W3C community group:
>>  http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/
>>
>> And Paolo is co-chair along with myself.
>>
>> We're *just* about to release the next version of the Community Group
>> draft, so your interest comes at a great time.
>> The NIF folk are also part of the Community Group, and we of course
>> would encourage your participation as well!
>>
>> Many thanks,
>>
>> Rob Sanderson
>> (Open Annotation Community Group co-chair)
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:55 AM, Matteo Casu <mattecasu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi everybody,
>>>
>>> [my apologies for cross posting -- possibly of interest for both communities]
>>>
>>> does anybody could point me to the major pros and cons in using the Annotation Ontology [0] [1] vs. the NLP interchange format in the context of annotating (portions of) literary texts? My impression is that when someone is using UIMA, the integration of AO with Clerezza-UIMA could give more comfort wrt NiF.
>>>
>>> [0] http://code.google.com/p/annotation-ontology/
>>> [1] http://www.annotationframework.org/
>>> [2] http://nlp2rdf.org/about
>>>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 13:53:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:46 UTC