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: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 08:30:10 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPRnXt=37PaACj-Ui9DkphGWKEVH3TfkhaAv0hZh6brwa7J7Hg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
Cc: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
"attached to" sounds good, this brings much more in line that general idea
of annotation as a kind of post-it that is attached to the Target resource,
and so we get a uniform directionality, and avoiding my silly backwards
interpretation.

It still makes it odd to have a semantic tag as the body, so that would
have to be done either inside the body (named graph, rdf resource, etc) or
as a special property from the Annotation.

-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes
myGrid team, University of Manchester
http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work
On 9 Jan 2013 00:45, "Paolo Ciccarese" <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>
>> Hi Stian, Paolo,
>>
>> I agree the directionality is a useful notion to keep. But if it's at the
>> cost of having such a statement as
>>
>> :ann1 a oa:Annotation ;
>>   oa:hasBody <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**List_of_Presidents_of_the_**
>> United_States<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States>>
>> ;
>>   oa:hasTarget <http://dbpedia.org/resource/**Bill_Clinton<http://dbpedia.org/resource/Bill_Clinton>>
>> .
>> for representing that someone tagged the wikipedia page with the resource
>> representing Bill Clinton, then we're doomed!
>>
>
> Just to be clear, I've never proposed to do that. I don't think it is
> feasible. That is why in Annotation Ontology we had two different
> relationships one for the classic body (and aboutness) and one for tags.
>
>
>>
>> This is indeed really counter-intuitive. To me the "tag" or "subject" (it
>> could be a SKOS concept, a test-as-body, whatever) is the thing that
>> annotates, not the thing that is annotated (NB: in fact while reading the
>> previous versions of the spec, I had understood oa:semanticTag was playing
>> the same functional role as oa:hasBody; I realize now I might have missed a
>> big part of the motivation for keeping them separate then!)
>>
>
> I think the process of annotating has a target and a body. The body is
> what the user attaches to the target. The interpretation of the value of
> 'attaching' varies. And we cannot force that direction for everything. In
> other words, it is a matter of defining better the annotation (or the
> annotation process). We have a new proposal that will be shared as soon as
> it is polished.
>
>
>> We really should focus on the functional side of things. Maybe the
>> problem with "about" is that it's too much loaded with intuitive semantics
>> that have in the end only little to do with the technical aspect of
>> annotation. We should rather aim at finding a word that expresses a
>> function (which carries directionality indeed).
>>
>
> That is what Rob and I discussed yesterday while revising the draft and we
> think we have a decent solution for that.
>
> Allow us a few more hours.
> Paolo
>
>
>
>  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
>>
>> http://www.wf4ever-project.org/wiki/display/docs/2011-09-26+Annotation+model+considerations#2011-09-26Annotationmodelconsiderations-AnnotationOntology%28AO%29
>>
>>   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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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 Wednesday, 9 January 2013 08:30:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 January 2013 08:30:40 GMT