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

Re: May a Specific Resource be object of the oa:hasScope relationship ?

From: Lutz Suhrbier <l.suhrbier@bgbm.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:08:05 +0100
Message-ID: <514AF825.6000401@bgbm.org>
To: public-openannotation@w3.org
Hi Rob,

sorry, did I raise some internal discussions about the right 
interpretation of the oa:hasScope to SpTarget construction within a SpBody ?

Otherwise, I would appreciate If you could make a statement if my 
interpretation of it's meaning is correct ("when the annotator created 
that SpBody, he was examining the SpTarget the oa:hasScope property 
connected with SpBody refers to") ?

Sorry, I don't want to push you, but we would need that information for 
our project internal discussion on how to finally realise our use case 
with OA.

best regards
Lutz


> Hi Rob,
>
> hmm, you're right. It does not really solve my problem. But may be, I 
> can live with a certain level of weakness.
>
> So, if I want to keep may construction using oa:hasScope to express my 
> use case, what I get is only a weak relationship between the scoped 
> body and the sptarget.
> It says something like, "when the annotator created that body, he was 
> examining the part of the document which was selected within the 
> scoped sptarget."
> Then, it is up to the application how it will interpret that kind of 
> "hint". It is up to the application to decide, if it wants to respect 
> the potential intentions of the annotator creating that body while 
> examining a specific part of the target. Or, to not respect them and 
> then possibly visualize some nonsense to the client user.
>
> Is that a correct interpretation of what I would get if i kept my 
> construction like it is ?
>
> Lutz
>
>
>
>> Hi Lutz :)
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Lutz Suhrbier <l.suhrbier@bgbm.org> 
>> wrote:
>>> Only regarding choices, I understood that at maximum one of the 
>>> specific
>>> resources can be selected by the client application. Your definition 
>>> below
>>> sounds like it may be more than one ?
>> On a semantic level they all apply, but the importance is that you
>> only have to display one of them.  For example, it's true that the
>> English version and the French version of a comment both apply to the
>> target, but you only need to show one of them to the user as they have
>> equivalent content.
>>
>>
>>> As in my use case, all SpTargets must be applied, and also all 
>>> SpBodies must
>>> be applied as well, the Composite appears to be the right concept to 
>>> express
>>> this.
>> Yes, but semantically the body composite applies to the target
>> composite. You need to have all of the resources in each composite in
>> order for the annotation to make sense.
>>  From the spec:  "A Composite is a set of resources that are all
>> required for an Annotation to be correctly interpreted."
>>
>> So the body composite is a set of resources that, as a set, annotates
>> the target.
>>
>>
>>> What's about the interpretation of oa:hasContext related to a SpTarget
>>> within SpBodies in general, and within SpBodies in a Composite in
>>> particular.
>> There isn't any special interpretation of hasScope for when the
>> subject and/or object also have roles in particular annotations.
>>
>> The, admittedly quite fuzzy and intentionally so, description from the
>> spec is that hasScope is "... to capture the context in which it was
>> made, in terms of the resources that the annotator was viewing or
>> using at the time" and that it does not make the relationship
>> expressed by the annotation valid only with the resources that were
>> being viewed.
>>
>> So if you have an image with hasScope to a web page as the target.
>> And the comment is "I like this image", that just says that the image
>> appears within the page, and that you like the image, not that you
>> like (the image in the page).
>>
>>> the image specified in the SpTarget must be seen by the client 
>>> application
>>> in the context of the web page.
>> The spec says:
>> "This does NOT imply an assertion that the annotation is only valid
>> for the image in the context of that page, it just records that the
>> page was being viewed."
>> (caps added for emphasis)
>>
>> Which definitely could be clearer, of course.
>>
>>> If I related now a Body to a SpTarget, than it would mean that
>>> the content of that body must be seen within the context of that 
>>> SpTarget,
>>> or not ?
>> Thus, no :(
>>
>> Hope that ... sort of ... helps, even if it doesn't solve the problem?
>>
>> Rob
>>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2013 12:08:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 21 March 2013 12:08:35 GMT