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

Re: Connecting multiple fragment selectors with individual bodies

From: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:38:45 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFPX2kBepz3ywwi2WipsZfap6uUkaM_NLqkMY4nb2DL5HcVwHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Cc: Leyla Jael García Castro <leylajael@gmail.com>, Lutz Suhrbier <l.suhrbier@bgbm.org>, public-openannotation@w3.org
Rob,
to me, what Lutz is doing looks more linking separate annotation with a
semantics that, however, in his example is not very explicit. It looks, to
me, very similar to what Kevin was doing with the annotations based on
other annotations.

I see grouping the annotation with the Composite Annotation as orthogonal
and therefore as possible on top of what Lutz is already doing.

Just to give a little more background about the grouping of annotation, Rob
and I had a side conversation and we see three different levels of
aggregations:
- Annotation Set (by topic, purpose....)
   - Composite Annotation
      - Annotations
I am assuming I could also nest additional levels. Like a
CompositeAnnotation hasAnnotation another CompositeAnnotation.

Paolo



On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>wrote:

> To throw in my 2c...
>
> I think there's a conceptual difference between linking separate
> annotations and grouping them together as a single intellectual
> entity.  If the annotations should always be transferred and used
> together then it seems that the group should have an identity of its
> own, rather than just links between individuals.
>
> Attached is a diagram with a CompositeAnnotation (which could be a
> subClass of rdf:Bag or ore:Aggregation) that groups together two other
> annotations, a tag and a comment, that should be kept together.  It's
> also available at
> http://www.openannotation.org/spec/proposals/composite_annotation.png
>
> The thinking behind this approach:
>
> *  In a group of (say) 5 annotations rather than just 2, you could
> need 20 relationships (each of the five should link to all of the
> others) to ensure they were all tied together.  This seems clumsy, to
> say the least
> *  The group gets an identity, and thus can be referred to.
> *  The group can have all of the properties of an Annotation for
> provenance, allowing a different agent to create the collection
> compared to creating the individual annotations
> *  It follows the CompositeSpecifier pattern that we already have
> *  It would allow us to get rid of the hasSemanticTag "shortcut"
>
> It does mean minting yet another identifier, but that's what you get
> when you use RDF.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Rob
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Leyla Jael García Castro
> <leylajael@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Paolo, Lutz,
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Paolo Ciccarese <
> paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Leyla
> >
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
>



-- 
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 15:39:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 13 August 2012 15:39:20 GMT