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

Re: Associating context with an annotation

From: James Smith <jgsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:44:00 -0400
Cc: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Message-Id: <89E72842-7D4D-4DC8-890C-93F7BF5A2F80@gmail.com>
To: Sebastian Hellmann <hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>

On Aug 17, 2012, at 11:38 AM, Sebastian Hellmann <hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote:

> Hi James,
> ( as suggested by Robert, I will break things down to the specific issues and topics on this list to annoy you on a lower level ;) . I even promise to use OA jargon as often as possible. )
> I am unable to understand the purpose of context in Option 2. I think it should be clarified, why you would need a context  for an aggregation of annotations as this is not mentioned in the scenario on top of the page.

Option 1 and Option 2 are two ways of accomplishing the same thing. They are both trying to assert that the annotation has its fullest meaning when the annotation target is considered in the context provided by the target of the oax:hasContext predicate. The question is which one (if any) seems to be the best way forward.

I need to point out in the wiki that Option 1 would allow you to specify context for body as well as target (or for different targets) while Option 2 is ambiguous about what is contextualized.

> As a comparison: the context model in NIF serves mainly these purposes:
> 1. limit the things that you can say about a selection (words are highly ambigue, depending on the granularity "house" can have dozens of meanings http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/house#English-abode  ). Thus "house" in a certain context is less ambigue and can not have all readings any more.

The oax:hasContext mechanism isn't designed to handle deciding when certain vocabularies or terms are allowed.

> 2. model context change, i.e. which annotations stay valid, when the context changes.
> 3. allow to automatically reason, whether two selectors select the same thing. This means "physically" inferring owl:sameAs between the respective Selectors and SpecificResources. (immensely useful to answer queries)

These are out of scope as well. We're not trying to create a mechanism to say how two annotations are related, or if the annotation is valid or invalid. Just a way to say that the full meaning of the annotation may not be evident unless it (the target or the body, depending on which part the oax:hasContext is attached) is considered within the context provided by the oax:hasContext part of the graph.

-- Jim
Received on Friday, 17 August 2012 17:44:30 UTC

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