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

Re: New drafts - general comments and intro

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 16:10:19 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtkfnxf3ZTWvzzQQMjPoTA6GeyN=r2HsfvzaU3TNU3gNtA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Paolo Ciccarese
<paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com> wrote:

>> So unless there's a strong motivation I'm overlooking, I'd recommend a
>> more neutral expression like "the body relates with the target". Granted,
>> it's less informative, but at least it's not dangerous.
> We had a discussion about this point while writing this version of the spec.
> I am ok with having 'related' replacing 'about'. The terms are both generic
> but 'relates' does not imply the directionality.
> Given the example you provided I don't see alternatives.

I have always liked the "is somewhat about" definition. It has an
implied directionality, which for most cases makes it easier to
determine what is body and what is target.

This is something I always found odd in the AO specification, where
one had ao:annotatesResource, ao:body and ao:hasTopic - but it was
there in particular to keep this distinction - classification would
use hasTopic instead.

My considerations back then in

> From this example above (using aot:Qualifier) one could strictly argue that for our annotation bodies, AO should be applied 'opposite' to how we used OAC, as the annotation bodies have the aggregated resources as their topics. We feel that this is somewhat counter-intuitive, as our motivation was to find a mechanism for attaching rich descriptions to aggregated resources. However, AO encourages specialisation through subclassing ao:Annotation, for instance an aot:Note relates an ann:body as a free-text note describing (a sub-selection of) the annotated document.

With "relates to" it gets quite blurry. I think the classification
example is the odd one out - and we have argued earlier to use
something like oa:semanticTag instead of oa:hasBody for that purpose.

So if Antoine case is "someone tags a web page with its subject", that is
not classification, perhaps it is identification.

I would, if I follow the current draft strictly, do this as:

:ann1 a oa:Annotation ;
  oa:hasBody <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States>
  oa:hasTarget <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Bill_Clinton> .

And even for pictures:

:ann2 a oa:Annotation ;
  oa:hasBody <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bush_and_Clinton.jpg> ;
  oa:hasTarget <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Bill_Clinton> .

We can't say it the other way, because
<http://dbpedia.org/resource/Bill_Clinton> is not (in this case)
"somewhat about" <Bush_and_Clinton.jpg>.

I know however this reads counter-intuitive - we feel that the
annotator should be "annotating the jpeg" above - not "annotating the
former president".   We might above also do an annotation with both
resources as oa:hasTarget and no body - but that does not say much,
not without an appropriate motivation.

With Antoine's "is related to" definition then this annotation could just
as well been written both ways - so I'm not sure how this would help
clarify the directionality, just open it for more confusion.

It might also help if the appropriate motivations can help to relate
the body and target, for instance oa:Classiciation does not state
clearly where we can find the classification, and oa:Tagging how to
find the tag. The use-case here is not classification, as
<http://dbpedia.org/resource/Bill_Clinton> is not a classification
type, but rather an Identification.

Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Monday, 7 January 2013 16:11:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:22:02 UTC