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

Re: Connecting multiple fragment selectors with individual bodies

From: Leyla Jael García Castro <leylajael@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:35:10 +0100
Message-ID: <CACLxDV7nQav9M9N5BXx-iw7EqKNcJ8bqsxG-_V36xgrkTSuQ2A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
Cc: Lutz Suhrbier <l.suhrbier@bgbm.org>, public-openannotation@w3.org
Hi Paolo, Lutz,

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Paolo Ciccarese

> Hi Lutz,
> I tried to depict your example. I stripped out those details that I
> thought where not relevant in regards to what you call the
> 'meta-annotation' and I copied some n3 in the pictures to be brief.

Using Paolo's images, @Lutz, if you did not have oax:hasSemanticTag, how
would you related those two annotations? I think it is important to
understand the kind of relations you are dealing with. Do they come from a
controlled vocabulary? Do you want users to create a new annotation that
relates the other two? In the last case, how do you expect users to
"suggest"/"choose" relations?

> I am trying to interpret what you are doing but I am not sure on what you
> mean. Let me give you an example so you can tell me how close or far I am.
> I look at a resource and I create a general comment saying 'there are
> several typos'. Then I create some other annotations - what you call
> sub-annotations - that, for instance, are detailing all the typos in the
> document. All the sub-annotations point to a fragment of the document and
> also point to the general comment as you consider them parts of that.

In Paolo's example, would a relationship such as "exampleOf" or "subsetOf"
make sense? What is your use case for relating annotations?

> Is this similar to what you are trying to do? The use of
> oax:hasSemanticTag is certainly very far from what we created it for.
> Rob and Kevin, I am wondering if the oax:basedOn would work here. In other
> words I have a general comment 'there are several typos' and then through
> the relationship oax:basedOn I point to the sub-annotations that help me
> supporting the general comment.

@Paolo, what about this other scenario: I annotate a fragment of a document
with a note "aim" (note 1) and later another fragment with a note "result"
(note2). A relationship between them could be note2 supports/addresses note
1. In that particular case, I guess oax:basedOn would not work. So, could I
use a third annotation to establish that statement? It is more or less what
people do when reading and analyzing documents, you make some notes and
some times you relate them.

> Also, Lutz, I am not completely sure on your use of dctypes:Dataset. Could
> you tell me more about it?
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Lutz Suhrbier <l.suhrbier@bgbm.org>wrote:
>>  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 ?
> All the figures you see in the documentation are actually manually created
> with Omnigraffle.
I would also recommend CMaps.



> Best,
> Paolo
>  Hi Lutz,
>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:53 PM, 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.
>> 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
> --
> Dr. Paolo Ciccarese
> http://www.paolociccarese.info/
> Biomedical Informatics Research & Development
> Instructor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School
> Assistant in Neuroscience at Mass General Hospital
> +1-857-366-1524 (mobile)   +1-617-768-8744 (office)
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the
> addressee(s), may contain information that is considered
> to be sensitive or confidential and may not be forwarded or disclosed to
> any other party without the permission of the sender.
> If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
> immediately.
Received on Monday, 13 August 2012 14:36:01 UTC

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