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

Re: F2F Decision: Multiple Resources

From: Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:46:34 -0400
Message-ID: <CADUi7O5JQNYirNs3=S9H0e48td+Ai1AJkca=gUZgKb4qqTc5yA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Cc: Leyla Jael García Castro <leylajael@gmail.com>, public-openannotation@w3.org
A typical use case for us would be a taxonomist's annotation of an
image, or of a morphological description,  of  an organism for which
the annotator is offering several different possible distinct species
as an identification, but with no ability to say which of those
species it may be.  In such cases, an "arbitrary" choice on the part
of the consumer is not going to be based on preference, but on some
kind of scientific evidence which possibly arises from related
resources, or even from part of an annotation dialogue.  A second
annotator, not the Target publisher,  who acquires the first
annotation might well launch an annotation of the form "In Annotation
X, I don't know what species the Target is, but I know it isn't
Alternative A, and here's my evidence for that."   This is also likely
to be a typical biomedical application where the resources are patient
examination data and the goal is a medical diagnosis. In fact,
taxonomists often refer to the descriptive data that distinguishes one
species from another as"diagnostic characters."

(Remark: in science, all choices between hypotheses are based on
evidence, which is why I'm gathering use cases to make a case for
adding Evidence modeling to OA.  I'd even go so far as to suggest that
\all/ scholarship needs Evidence sooner or later to support its
assertions....)

Bob Morris


On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:
> The XOR or Choice is to select one and only one of the resources.  For
> example, if there are three translations of the same comment, a system
> should display only one of them as appropriate for the user's
> preferences (and potentially allow the user to se the other options).
> On the other hand, given an oa:Set of three comments, all three should
> be displayed.
>
> Hope that helps,
>
> Rob
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Leyla Jael García Castro
> <leylajael@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Bob,
>>
>> Do you have a use case for the ao:XOR? Not so sure whether I understand it.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Leyla
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> With respect to the Multiple Resources model[1] that emerged in Chicago
>>>
>>> 1. It would be nice if the Issues List reflected what Rob's initial
>>> proposal morphed into, and the discussion continued there. (Rob: I'll have a
>>> try if you want...)
>>>
>>> 2. oa:Set and probably oa:List can profitably be applied to  a collection
>>> of oa:Annotations.  The use case is actionable annotations that are
>>> delivered to remote agents,  and upon which collections of expected actions
>>> must taken, possibly in a prescribed order.  This is particularly needed
>>> when actionable annotations will generate response annotations (e.g. "Agent
>>> Smart accepted all of your corrections in the oa:Set :mySet1 except the
>>> oa:item :mySet1.item10.").  If a collection of actionable annotations
>>> travels in a disconnected fashion, the annotation publisher can not easily
>>> (at all?) convey that a coordinated action is desired.  There may be an
>>> argument for ao:XOR on collections of annotations also.  It's likely that
>>> none of these collection types should be restricted to Target, Body, and
>>> Specifiers, as is perhaps being suggested in [1]
>>>
>>> 3.  Probably oa:List objects cannot(?) survive being put in a triple
>>> store, since order of identified nodes is not defined in the graph. [2] is a
>>> proposal to address the issue, but it is unclear how much traction it has.
>>> This means that  processing order for oa:List will depend on the
>>> serialization, not on the RDF.  I vaguely recall this was raised in Chicago,
>>> perhaps tabled for more discussion.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openannotation/2012Oct/0004.html#start4
>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/papers/ws14
>>>
>>> Bob Morris
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>>
>>



-- 
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 Monday, 29 October 2012 18:47:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 29 October 2012 18:47:04 GMT