W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > August 2012

Re: Connecting multiple fragment selectors with individual bodies

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 16:51:42 -0600
Message-ID: <CABevsUHfrizuAf_RiJmYmuAYV-2CC0j+MxxRsuRBEvHEmuLO9A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lutz Suhrbier <l.suhrbier@bgbm.org>
Cc: public-openannotation@w3.org
Hi Lutz,

Is there a reason why you want to have all of this information as one
annotation, rather than simply splitting it up into multiple
annotations?  That would seem the easiest route.

The model only allows one Body currently for exactly this reason; that
people would simply put all of the bodies and all of the targets in
one big blob of uninterpretable RDF, even though some Bodies relate
only to some of the Targets.  It also shows the danger of workarounds
like hasSemanticTag which side step this issue.


On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Lutz Suhrbier <l.suhrbier@bgbm.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> I am currently trying to adopt OA to an application scenario, which I
> actually didn't found described here.
> The plan is to annotate XML documents in a way that the annotation relates
> one or more XML element values(let's call them subannotations), which can be
> given a domain specific annotation type.
> As the target selection of subannotations(XML Elements) can be realised by
> the usage of multiple specific targets in combination with fragment
> selectors, there is no obvious and standard conform way of assigning
> individual annotated values(bodies) to the selected targets.
> Currently, I implemented a workaround by applicating the oax:hasSemanticTag
> predicate to each subannotation "pointing" at an embracing "meta"
> annotation.
> Even though that workaround appears to be doing its job, I am wondering
> 1) if that is the intended way of using hasSemanticTag ?
> 2) if there is no other standard conform method reflecting that scenario
> which can actually reflect those requirements ?
> With regard to a potential approach to be integrated within the standard,
> simply allowing multiple targets and multiple bodies does not appear to
> solve that question adequately, as the relationship between the specific
> target and the body (subannotation) would not be reflected. As the crucial
> point is the relationship between target and body, a target predicate like
> "hasBody" would be a better approach, at least from my perspective. One may
> even think about moving the "hasBody" predicate from oa:annotation to
> oa:target, as I see no relevant application of having annotations just
> consisting of a body without any target ?
> Anyway, doing so should not hinder any otherwise possible logical
> construction of annotations, or does it ? Also, it does not preclude
> annotations having targets pointing at the same body, nor does it preclude
> targets having multiple bodies if the discussion shows that this is somewhat
> useful.
> I have to mention, that this is my first project using RDF or OA, so may be
> I am in some topic completely misleaded. But I would appreciate if my point
> could be somehow discussed and reflected in an upcoming release of the
> standard.
> best regards
> Lutz Suhrbier
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2012 22:52:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:22:01 UTC