Re: Last Ultimate Final Call :)

Hi Paolo,

Thanks! I understand better now. In both cases, with tags and semantic
tags, I am assigning some kind of category or identification to the
resource but in the case of semantic tags I use entities rather than plain
text.

In the example (
http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/wiki/SE_Semantically_Tagging_an_Image),
ex:anno oa:motivation oa:Tagging is missing in the RDF, is not it? And it
should be ex:anno and not ex:Anno in the RDF as well.

If I want to specify the exact intended relation, not necessarily with
semantic tags but in general, how could it be achieved thorough
annotations? Would that be a case for annotation/conversations? Or
annotations on annotations? Let's say I am reading an article (A1) and I
find a method/material/whatever that I know have been criticized in the
background section in a different article (A2).  It is not a motivation
because "criticizing" is not the annotator's intention but the relation
between the body and the target. How could I model that with OA? The idea
would be something like:

<anno1> a oa:Annotation ;
    oa:hasBody <spbody1> ;
    oa:hasTarget <sptarget1> ;
    xxx:intendedRelation "criticizes". ##how to model this?

  <spbody1> a oa:SpecificResource ;
    oa:hasSource <URL for article A2> .

  <sptarget1> a oa:SpecificResource ;
    oa:hasSource <URL for article A1> .

If "criticizes" comes from an ontology, then I could have something like
<anno1> a oa:Annotation ;
    oa:hasBody <spbody1> ;
    oa:hasTarget <sptarget1> .
  <spbody1> a oa:SpecificResource ;
    oa:hasSource <URL for article A2> .
  <sptarget1> a oa:SpecificResource ;
    oa:hasSource <URL for article A1> .

<anno2> a oa:Annotation ;
    oa:hasBody <URI for term criticizes in some ontology> ;
    oa:hasTarget <anno1> ;
    oa:motivatedBy oa:Tagging.

<URI for term criticizes in some ontology> a oa:Tag .

Even if "criticizes" does not come from an ontology, I still can use a
plain text tag on <anno1> but I am not sure tag or semantic tag would be
the way. Maybe "specify relation" or kind of would be a motivation for
annotations on annotations?

Cheers,

Leyla

On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Paolo Ciccarese
<paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>wrote:

> Leyla,
> I've updated the description to better reflect that:
>
> http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/wiki/SE_Semantically_Tagging_an_Image
>
> Let me know if that is better or if it is still confusing.
> Paolo
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi Leyla,
>> we have been discussed about that issue and we tried to explain it in the
>> Introduction:
>> http://www.openannotation.org/spec/future/#Introduction
>>
>> "An annotation is considered to be a set of connected resources,
>> typically including a body and target, and conveys that the body is related
>> to the target. The exact nature of this relationship changes according to
>> the intention of the annotation, but most frequently conveys that the body
>> is somehow "about" the target. Other possible relationships include that
>> the body is an identifier for the target, provides a representation of the
>> target, or classifies the target in some way."
>>
>> In other words, while in annotations such as comments you can say that
>> the body is somehow about the target, with a semantic tag I would say we
>> 'classify' the target.
>>
>> Does this help?
>>
>> Paolo
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Leyla Jael García Castro <
>> leylajael@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> My doubt has probably been already solved in some thread but did not
>>> find it.
>>> I just saw the semantic tag example at
>>> http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/wiki/SE_Semantically_Tagging_an_Image
>>>
>>> What would be the relation between the tagged image and the dbpedia
>>> entity used as semantic tag? In some how I have the subject (it would be
>>> the target of the annotation) and the object (it would be the body of the
>>> annotation), but what would be the predicate?
>>>
>>> Understanding that could maybe help me to better follow the discussion
>>> about the semantic tags.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Leyla
>>> On Feb 1, 2013 6:39 PM, "Paolo Ciccarese" <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No doubt that is elegant solution with respect of the rest of the model.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Paolo Ciccarese
>>>>> <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> > On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Robert Sanderson <
>>>>> azaroth42@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> >> > So how about recommending to do #tag on the URI of the page?
>>>>> >> > Like: http://omim.org/entry/104760#tag
>>>>> >> > Again, not ideal but it could help. No?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> This is what we recommend already, using a different URI  and
>>>>> linking
>>>>> >> it to the document :)
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Wait, that is exactly my point. Not 'a different URI' in general,
>>>>> that would
>>>>> > create a mess I believe.
>>>>> > How do we feel in pushing for a specific way of using "the different
>>>>> URI"
>>>>> > #something?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't like it, especially with the clarification in RDF 1.1 that
>>>>> fragments identify the element within the hosting format, not a
>>>>> semantic resource.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-fragID
>>>>>
>>>>> So if there was a "tag" in the underlying document, then it would
>>>>> refer to that, not the use of the URI as a semantic tag.  It still has
>>>>> the same collision problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> The clean way, IMO, is:
>>>>>
>>>>> <anno1> a oa:Annotation ;
>>>>>   oa:hasBody <tagSpRes1> ;
>>>>>   oa:hasTarget <target1> .
>>>>>
>>>>> <tagSpRes1> a oa:SpecificResource , oa:[Semantic]Tag ;
>>>>>   oa:hasSource <http://omim.org/entry/104760> ;
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is just a clarification of what we already say in the doc, that
>>>>> you mint a new URI and link it to the original URI.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>