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

Re: Annotation Concept vs Document (was Level 1 comments)

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 23:06:49 +0100
Message-ID: <5106F679.90409@few.vu.nl>
To: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
On 1/28/13 9:45 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Antoine Isaac<aisaac@few.vu.nl>  wrote:
>> On 1/9/13 6:05 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>>>      Side question: I'd be curious to hear whether
>>>      oa:Annotation rdfs:subClassOf ore:Aggregation
>>>      holds for you (for me it does!)
>>> We tried that in OAC, you may not be surprised to hear. It ... was not
>>> well received.
>>> See: http://www.openannotation.org/spec/alpha2/#DM_Baseline and compare to
>>> /alpha and /beta
>> Well, if you already had this view that annotations are serialization, it's
>> not a surprise that a mapping to ore:Aggregation (which are rather abstract
>> beasts) has been not well received!
> No, it was the following issues:
> * The assumption was that if Annotation == Aggregation, then the
> bodies and targets are the aggregated resources.
> * The ORE docs say that non resolvable URIs cannot be aggregated.
> This kills any UUID or blank node resource as an aggregated resource.

Yes, that would be indeed a big contradiction. We should ask the ORE editors to change their spec ;-)
Seriously, just asking in case: was it a strong position when making ORE? I'm not sure why it would break anything. I'm surprised anyone would never try to use a DOI for an aggregated resource (cough, handwave, mumble ;-) ).

> * The Proxy construction for talking about the
> resource-in-the-context-of-the-Annotation was not especially liked.
> This would be the equivalent of a Specific Resource that we have now.

I would disagree. In all examples I can think ok, the resources considered by the annotation are described in "objective" terms, not "specific to the annotation at hand". A text body and an image target do not change across context.
Hmm, in fact there is a problem: the styles. These can be annotation-specific. On the other hand, the OA spec seems to ignore happily to ignore the issue of reconciling annotations that would style differently a same body or target. So I'm not sure why we should consider proxies, when aligning annotations to ORE... Unless you want to embark on fixing the issue in OA as it is now ;-)

> * The mandatory separation of Annotation/Aggregation and
> (serialization)/ResourceMap

Interesting point. In fact I had always understood ResourceMap to be slightly different from the kind of serialization we have in OA. Sentences like "a Resource Map that describes an Aggregation can readily be expressed in RDF/XML and other RDF serialization formats such as n3 and turtle" [1] or "Where RDF/XML is used to provide representations of ORE Resource Maps" [2] always made me think a Resource Map was not specific to a given syntax, especially. But I now realize I might have been wrong.


[1] http://www.openarchives.org/ore/1.0/primer.html
[2] http://www.openarchives.org/ore/1.0/rdfxml.html
Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 22:07:18 UTC

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