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

Re: Connecting multiple fragment selectors with individual bodies

From: Lutz Suhrbier <l.suhrbier@bgbm.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:00:23 +0200
Message-ID: <5028FA67.1000100@bgbm.org>
To: Leyla Jael GarcĂ­a Castro <leylajael@gmail.com>, paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com
CC: public-openannotation@w3.org
Hi Leyla and Paolo,

please find attached the export of the very simple model from my 
Annotation JUnit-Test in rdf-xml and N3.
It simply creates two types of Agents and Institutions, serving as 
annotator and generator of a single "meta" annotation, which include a 
single "sub" annotion which

The annotation is about a source target with the URI 
"urn:guid:BGBM:Bridel+Herbar:Bridel-1-12:1344860699609:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tdwg.org%2Fschemas%2Fabcd%2F2.06". 


The "meta" - annotation URI is 
urn:guid:bgbm:annosys:1344860701104:1344860701104.
The "sub"annotation outlining the XPath within the source target XML 
document is urn:guid:bgbm:annosys:1344860701292:1344860701292, and uses 
the hasSemantic Tag pointing at the enclosing "meta"-annotation.

The specific Target describing the XML Element within source target is 
urn:guid:bgbm:annosys:1344860701296:1344860701296.
Furthermore, I introduced a XPath selector called <oax:xpath>, which 
simply includes an XPath expression to describe the XML element to be 
annotated.
The body of each "sub" annotation (XML Element annotation) may comprise 
a new value and/or a comment related to the annotated XML element.

I hope, my explication is not too complicated. If you have any 
questions, please come back to me.

BTW. As I am quite new to RDF, what tool are you using to visualise all 
the RDF graphs in your documentation ? Protegé ?

Thanks
Lutz




> Hi Lutz,
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Lutz Suhrbier <l.suhrbier@bgbm.org 
> <mailto: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.
>
>
> So, if I understand well, you have one annotation A1 and another one 
> A2 and you want to create an annotation to relate them? Are you using 
> predefined relations? or will you allow people to define the relation 
> on the fly? for instance, using the body of the annotation as the 
> suggested name for the relation.
>
> We have worked on a similar scenario but it is not yet compatible with 
> OA. Anyway, if you provide some more information, maybe as Paolo 
> suggests an example, it would make easier to understand better your 
> scenario.
>
> cheers,
>
> Leyla
>
>
>     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 Monday, 13 August 2012 13:00:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 13 August 2012 13:00:54 GMT