W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Plain textual bodies - summary of arguments and possible solutions

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 11:58:34 +0100
Message-ID: <510F945A.7060505@few.vu.nl>
To: <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Hi Bob,

Impressive digging!
But I'm still skeptical. By "released", I indeed meant "triples published somewhere".
Something that would have an index like Sindice having more than "0" as result for
http://sindice.com/search?q=&nq=%28*%20%3Chttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2011%2Fcontent%23chars%3E%20*%29&fq=&interface=guru


Cheers,

Antoine


> I'm not sure what counts as "released", but the project reported in
> [1] uses cnt  via its sister "Http in RDF"[2].  They appear to use it
> in a fashion rather consistently with a remark in the closing of an
> issue [3] in PROV declining to make it part of PROV itself
>
>
> [1] Thomas Steiner et al. "Adding Meaning to Facebook Microposts via a
> Mash-up API and Tracking Its Data Provenance" http://bit.ly/UQAziR
>
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/HTTP-in-RDF10/
>
> [3] ISSUE-171: HTTP in RDF http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/171
>
> Bob Morris
>
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Antoine Isaac<aisaac@few.vu.nl>  wrote:
>> Dear Bob, all
>>
>> After a lot of time I could finally react to your (some very interesting)
>> comments.
>>
>> By the way there's one thing that may be more efficient over email: has
>> anyone seen any data released, using the Content as text model? Besides the
>> one produced by this group, I mean.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Antoine
>>
>>
>>> Bernhard has produced an excellent  page on the issue wiki
>>> http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/wiki/Textual_Bodies. I
>>> would urge that any discussions continue there. The "history" tab on
>>> that page makes it easy to find out what is evolving, and the  "watch"
>>> tab provides email notifications of changes.
>>>
>>> Bob Morris
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Paolo Ciccarese
>>> <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thank you Bernhard!
>>>> Whatever approach we will all decide for, it is good to keep track of all
>>>> these aspects for future reference.
>>>>
>>>> best,
>>>> Paolo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Bernhard Haslhofer
>>>> <bernhard.haslhofer@cornell.edu>   wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the current discussion on supporting plain text (literal) bodies
>>>>> in the Open Annotation model is important because there are many
>>>>> real-world
>>>>> annotation use cases that attach such bodies to Web resources (e.g.,
>>>>> Flickr). Therefore I spent some time to summarize existing pro and con
>>>>> arguments and came up with possible solutions (with some help from
>>>>> Antoine)
>>>>> for representing plain text (literal) bodies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is the Wikipage:
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/wiki/Textual_Bodies
>>>>>
>>>>> Apologies in advance, I tried to find and cite all arguments in the spec
>>>>> and the previous thread as precisely as possible, but might have missed
>>>>> one
>>>>> or the other. So please fix the arguments directly in the wiki. If there
>>>>> are
>>>>> other possible solutions, please add them...
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems that there are two possible solutions at the moment:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.) Allow Literals for oa:hasBody
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.) Introduce a shortcut property (e.g., oa:hasLiteralBody) for plain
>>>>> text
>>>>> bodies
>>>>>
>>>>> I think both solutions are feasible and meet the goal of "remaining
>>>>> simple
>>>>> enough to also allow for the most common use cases, such as attaching a
>>>>> piece of text to a single web resource", mentioned in the introduction.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I had to choose now, I would probably prefer the first option because
>>>>> I
>>>>> am not (yet) convinced by the counter-arguments and it avoids the
>>>>> introduction of another property. Also, the motivation for using OA in
>>>>> our
>>>>> context (maphub, yuma, etc.) is sharing and exchanging annotation data
>>>>> on
>>>>> the Web and not building a formal knowledge base one can use for
>>>>> inferencing; therefore also allowing literals as bodies could easily be
>>>>> handled by an additional "if body.isLiteral?" condition in any OA
>>>>> parser.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I understand that inferencing and therefore consistency is
>>>>> rather
>>>>> important for some other use cases, which brings me back to the second
>>>>> option as a possible compromise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Bernhard
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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 Monday, 4 February 2013 10:59:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:22:03 UTC