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

Re: F2F Decision: Sub-classing

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 13:13:21 +0100
Message-ID: <5093B8E1.6080008@few.vu.nl>
CC: <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Hi Layla,


>
> I think I understand Antoine's concerns but still would like to have some common motivations in oax so it will be even clearer what the intention is.


It seems that the discussion show it's not even clear within the group, for some of these motivations ;-)
OK, I'm being picky: if the group reaches consensus on a subset similar to the ones now, and the result is not cluttering the spec too much, it can be interesting. It's just that I was afraid of too much energy going into (re-)defining them...


> As for oax:Motivation vs SKOS concepts, is not possible an hybrid approach? ex:Comment can be a skos:Concept but also a oax:Motivation, cannot it?


Yes, it is. One could define oax:Motivation as a sub-class of skos:Concept, even -- in case the group would want to more strongly recommend the use of SKOS for these things.


  
> In a similar vein, is it not possible at least to introduce the oax:Expectation and leave the actual expectations to communities but just making clear what the intention is? How would be the community-specific stuff integrated to OA? Because even if it is community-specific, we want to avoid different communities reinventing the wheel, right?


On paper this looks good. But it's again depending on whether the group can agree that there's a clear-cut line between Expectation and Motivation.

A.

>
> Leyla
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Rob, all
>
>     I support the first two points points below.
>
>     But I of course agree with Jacob's reminding that we had discussed that SKOS could be used as an ontology to describe the resources used with oa:motivatedBy.
>     I know I may be biased on this. But I still think it could be a useful piece of guidance for readers.
>
>     For info here's how a couple of motivations could look like in SKOS (based on a subset of your list in [1])
>
>     ex:Comment a skos:Concept ;
>     skos:prefLabel "Comment"@en ;
>     skos:prefLabel "Commentaire"@fr ;
>     skos:broader ex:Information .
>
>     ex:Information a skos:Concept ;
>     skos:prefLabel "Information"@en ;
>     skos:prefLabel "Information"@fr ;
>     skos:scopeNote "This motivation denotes informing motivations such as commenting, classifying, linking or tagging"@en .
>
>
>     Note that I've use Edition not Editing. I don't see the point in mapping anything here. Just deprecate the existing classes, if you're still at the draft spec stage! Keeping the old classes visible and providing a mapping will just clutter the landscape considerably. (Worst case, if you want to keep them, you could just update their typing and not add extra resources)
>
>
>     I'm also using a fake ex: prefix and not oax: . I strongly agree that we should *not* have motivations even in OAX, whether as classes or instances (of SKOS concept or anything else).
>     Trying to capture all types out there is a real can of worms. You don't want to have this standing in the path of more basic stuff. I mean, knowing/representing motivations is important, it's just that I don't think trying to fit a reference list in the spec makes sense right now, if ever.
>
>     If you want, you may introduce a top-level motivation, e.g., oax:Motivation. Specific communities could use it as an anchor for attaching their specializations.
>     But the risk then is that you make the guidance stronger on how to represent motivations. Giving users a starting point already committed to some representation approach (e.g., SKOS) sends the message that the same approach should be used across the board.
>
>     Cheers,
>
>     Antoine
>
>     [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/public-openannotation/__2012Oct/0045.html <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openannotation/2012Oct/0045.html>
>
>
>
>         The current document says that subclasses of oa:Annotation express the
>         "reasons why the annotation was created". It was expressed that this
>         is not actually possible, as we are introducing additional semantics
>         to the meaning of rdf:type.
>
>         The consensus was as follows:
>
>         - Every annotation MUST have an explicit class of oa:Annotation,
>         regardless of any other classes
>         This is in order to make sure that the annotations are recognized as
>         oa:Annotations to ensure interoperability.
>
>         - SubClasses of oa:Annotation should be introduced primarily to
>         further restrict the data model, and may be introduced by any one.
>         For example a xxx:Highlight subClass might restrict the model that
>         there should be exactly one target and no body.
>
>         - Existing subclasses will be mapped to a new type of resource, an
>         oa:Motivation, and referenced by a new predicate from the Annotation:
>         oa:motivatedBy
>         For example, instead of an oax:Hightlight, one would have:
>
>         _:x a oa:Annotation ;
>         oa:motivatedBy oax:Highlighting ;
>         oa:hasBody<body1> ;
>         oa:hasTarget<target1> .
>
>         (Mapping to be provided)
>
>         - We will not introduce oa:Expectation (the producers expectation of
>         what a consumer of the annotation will do), as all of the examples
>         were specific to individual network transactions.
>         Two examples were discussed:
>         * A change request, where the expectation is that the consumer will
>         act upon it. This is only a valid expectation for transactions
>         between a client and an agent capable of performing the change. As
>         such it does not belong in an interoperability specification, but can
>         be added in by systems capable of accepting/creating the change.
>         * The expectation that the server will generate an alert based on the
>         social network of the annotator. This is only desirable for the
>         initial creation of the annotation, not any subsequent harvesting and
>         reuse. So this also is only a valid expectation of the initial
>         transaction between a client and server, rather than a persistent
>         property of the annotation.
>
>
>         Thanks,
>
>         Rob& Paolo
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 2 November 2012 12:13:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 2 November 2012 12:13:50 GMT