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

Re: F2F Decision: Multiple Resources

From: Leyla Jael García Castro <leylajael@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:35:06 +0000
Message-ID: <CACLxDV4n9jh9mAXvrO22_ZP4MwZ+0h9n9TNXwzBCN3UPrA7gtw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Cc: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>, Jacob Jett <jgjett@gmail.com>, public-openannotation@w3.org
Hi all,

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>wrote:

> I don't see a problem with it, but should definitely be
> oax:asIncludedIn, as it can be used for both Body and Target.
> asAnnotatedIn would imply it could only be used for the target.
>

@Rob. So, oax:asIncludedIn could be used for Body, Target, and Annotation
as well? It is used on an Annotation in Paolo's example (oax:annotatedIn).
Also in Paolo's example, what would be the difference between using
oax:asIncludedIn on the _x Annotation or on the <choice1> Body? Because
both would be possible, would not them?

@Bob. Thanks for the example, all the previous ones were about language
selection, yours is richer. As you mention, some of it can also be used for
assertion support, not only in scientific articles but also (maybe) in
community-based annotation on genes or proteins.

Cheers,

Leyla

>
> Rob
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Paolo Ciccarese
> <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Jacob,
> > I've never thought about the use of oax:annotatedIn for targeting one of
> the
> > bodies.
> > However, that seems an interesting use case.
> >
> > Is this what you mean?
> >
> > _:x a oa:Annotation ;
> >   oa:hasBody <choice1> ;
> >   oa:hasTarget <ny-times-article> .
> >
> > <choice1> a oa:Choice ;
> >   oa:default <comment-in-french> ;
> >   oa:item <comment-in-english> ;
> >   oa:item <comment-in-spanish> .
> >
> > _:y a oa:Annotation ;
> >   oa:hasBody <body> ;
> >   oa:hasTarget <comment-in-french> ;
> >   oa:annotatedIn _:x .
> >
> > After Chicago [1], the decision was to introduce a new predicate:
> > oax:annotatedIn from a
> > SpecificResource to any Resource (including a SpecificResource). The idea
> > was simply to identify
> > something the user was looking at when performing the annotation.
> >
> > That is very easy to understand when I think of an HTML document
> embedding
> > other media.
> > The question is if we want to extend that definition to annotation of
> > annotation parts.
> >
> > Would anybody see a problem is using the property oax:annotatedIn (or the
> > later proposed
> > oax:asIncludedIn) for the annotation of annotation parts use case?
> >
> > Paolo
> >
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openannotation/2012Oct/0003.html
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Jacob Jett <jgjett@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> ...but couldn't this already be done in the model by annotating the
> >> initial multi-body (oa:Choice) annotation? More specifically, couldn't
> we
> >> annotate one of the choices and use the context predicate
> "oax:annotatedIn"
> >> to capture the annotating an annotation bit?
> >>
> >> It seems like this might be very useful for your use case where, if we
> >> were to model the different distinct possibilities as one oa:Choice, you
> >> could then add an annotation targeting one of the objects of an oa:item
> >> predicate within that choice, e.g., 'this is our default choice and
> here is
> >> why', and use oax:annotatedIn to denote that this annotation noting a
> >> default choice and the reasoning why (i.e., the evidence), was made in
> the
> >> context of an oa:Choice.
> >>
> >> The modeling is complex but it seems like this would service the needs
> of
> >> your use case without adding additional properties to the specification.
> >> Does that seem sensible? Seems like there are some other ways to do this
> >> too, including adding additional properties.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Jacob
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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 Tuesday, 30 October 2012 10:35:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 30 October 2012 10:35:55 GMT