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

Re: Q: how to encode annotation "roles"

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 14:34:18 -0600
Message-ID: <CABevsUH5_G6QxsoBJ3Ja8_MR7SLkwRfy-_svR=3Y7ib=p6C6Sg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com>
Cc: Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>, public-openannotation@w3.org
Hi Bob,

The motivation is the association of resources.  It happens that one
resource is a Person, but that doesn't require a separate class of
AssociatedPersonAnnotation to determine, as Gustav Eiffel is an
instance of Person.  Similarly, if someone wanted to associate a Gene,
or a Painting, or a Color.  We don't want to duplicate every single
conceivable class into an associated(thing)annotation. Or worse,
PersonAssociatedWithEventAnnotation! :)

The extension lists several high level motivations:

Depiction could be a new one, if Description has an overwhelmingly
textual connotation.


On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rob--
> I'm confused by your answer.
> http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/#Motivation says that only
> subclasses of oa:Annotation are motivations.  Doesn't this require
> that if Jacco's "roles" are to be considered motivations, then they
> must be modelled as subclasses, such as the AssociatedPersonClass you
> say he doesn't need?
> Bob Morris
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Jacco,
>> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Jacco van Ossenbruggen
>> <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl> wrote:
>>> I think the Eiffeltower example at [1] is pretty close to what I need.  But
>>> let's suppose I need a little more and want to explicitly assign different
>>> "roles" to my annotations, say the "depicted object" role (the Eiffel
>>> Tower), the "associated event" role (e.g. the 1889 World Fair) and the
>>> "associated person" role (e.g. Gustave Eiffel).
>> We've considered that the "role" in this case is a motivation --
>> you're creating an association between the resources via the
>> annotation.  I think, if I understand the question correctly, that the
>> other information can be covered by simply assigning a class to the
>> tag?
>> For example, if you said that (Gustave Eiffel) was a Person, then it's
>> clear that he's an associated (via the annotation) person, and we
>> don't need a new class for AssociatedPersonAnnotation.
>> I would think that Description could be used for the depiction case,
>> but maybe it would be clearer if there was a separate oax:Depiction
>> class?
>> Hope that helps!
>> Rob
> --
> Robert A. Morris
> Emeritus Professor  of Computer Science
> UMASS-Boston
> 100 Morrissey Blvd
> Boston, MA 02125-3390
> IT Staff
> Filtered Push Project
> Harvard University Herbaria
> Harvard University
> email: morris.bob@gmail.com
> web: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/
> web: http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush
> http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram
> ===
> The content of this communication is made entirely on my
> own behalf and in no way should be deemed to express
> official positions of The University of Massachusetts at Boston or
> Harvard University.
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 20:34:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:22:00 UTC