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

Re: Annotation body a transcription of the target

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:26:16 -0600
Message-ID: <CABevsUHHPT_s28YqX=RFjAYjLu=KARA9DC3-tbvDdEC8=MOn6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Rainer <Rainer.Simon@ait.ac.at>
Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, "public-openannotation@w3.org" <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Dear all,

I would think that more annotation clients would do the right thing with
the two body method, one toponym with the content in cnt:chars, and one
semantic tag with the URI.

So:

<anno1> a oa:Annotation ;
  oa:hasBody _:body1 ;
  oa:hasBody <place1> ;
  oa:hasTarget <target1> ;
  oa:motivatedBy pelagios:someMotivationHere .

_:body1 a cnt:ContentAsText, pelagios:Toponym ;
  cnt:chars "Placename" .

<place1> a oa:SemanticTag, pelagios:PlaceOrSimilarTypeHere .


Using Shared Canvas, the target would be a Canvas representing the physical
object and the motivation would be sc:painting, but otherwise it would be
identical.

Rob



On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:51 AM, Simon Rainer <Rainer.Simon@ait.ac.at>wrote:

> Hi Antoine,
>
> yes I agree - it's the URI body that's the semantic tag rather than the
> description. Otherwise I think I'm seeing a trend towards this solution:
>
> oa:hasBody [ rdf:type pelagios:Toponym ; rdfs:label "Placename"  ]  .
>
> A general question concerning this: is "rdfs:label" preferable over
> "cnt:chars" then? (Which is what the spec uses for textual bodies.)
>
> Cheers,
> Rainer
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
> Gesendet: Freitag, 11. Oktober 2013 08:56
> An: public-openannotation@w3.org
> Betreff: Re: Annotation body a transcription of the target
>
> Hi Rainer,
>
> I'd think the semantic tag is rather the other body, which has been left
> out of discussion  so far, no?
> We have something like
>
> oa:hasBody [ pelagios:theURIForThePlace rdf:type oa:SemanticTag ]  .
> oa:hasBody [ rdf:type pelagios:Toponym ; rdfs:label "Placename"  ]  .
>
> The question then is if you want to capture explicitly that the
> transcription is precisely a transcription of the place denoted by the URI.
> It doesn't look crucial (unless a same annotation will handle different
> places at once, which doesn't seem a good thing to do) but *if* you need
> it, then you'd have two basic choices
>
> a. Representing a direct link between the two bodies:
> oa:hasBody [ pelagios:theURIForThePlace rdf:type oa:SemanticTag ]  .
> oa:hasBody [ rdf:type pelagios:Toponym ; rdfs:label "Placename" ;
> pelagios:transcriptionOf pelagios:theURIForThePlace ]  .
>
>
> b. Mint a specific type for the annotation, to reflect that it's a
> "semantic annotation con transcription". Which can be done either by
> subclassing oa:Annotation or introducing a new instance of skos:Concept.
>
> oa:hasBody [ pelagios:theURIForThePlace rdf:type oa:SemanticTag ]  .
> oa:hasBody [ rdf:type pelagios:Toponym ; rdfs:label "Placename" ;
> pelagios:transcriptionOf pelagios:theURIForThePlace ]  .
> oa:motivatedBy pelagios:transcribingAndLinkingToGazetteer"
>
> the latter looks a bit uglier perhaps. (and either a and b would be of
> course more complex than the first solution)
>
> Best,
>
> Antoine
>
>
> > So then why don't you just use:
> >
> > hasBody [ chars: "Placename"; rdf:type: "pelagios:Toponym" ] .
> >
> > Sounds sufficient to me. The type "pelagios:Toponym" seems to imply that
> it is a transcribed place, right?
> >
> > Ok, actually now, thinking about it, I understand the problem better.
> >
> > What about (switching to turtle syntax):
> > oa:hasBody [ rdf:type oa:SemanticTag ; rdf:type pelagios:Toponym ;
> rdfs:label "Placename"  ]  .
> >
> > Sounds more like a semantic tag to me now.
> > Sebastian
> >
> >
> > Am 11.10.2013 07:32, schrieb Simon Rainer:
> >> Hi Sebastian,
> >>
> >> yes, I'd say my options are either 1 or 2. We simply use
> "pelagios:Toponym" to denote a transcribed place, so option 3 is redundant.
> (That probably wasn't clear from my last E-Mail...) And Option 4 doesn't
> happen, since if we have no transcription, we just omit the textual body
> altogether.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Rainer
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >> Von: Sebastian Hellmann [mailto:hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de]
> >> Gesendet: Freitag, 11. Oktober 2013 07:10
> >> An: Simon Rainer; public-openannotation
> >> Betreff: Re: Annotation body a transcription of the target
> >>
> >> Dear Simon,
> >> a clarification question. So your options are:
> >>
> >> 1.
> >> hasBody [ chars: "Placename"; rdf:type: "pelagios:Toponym" ] .
> >>
> >> 2.
> >> hasTranscription [ chars: "Placename"; rdf:type: "pelagios:Toponym" ] .
> >> hasTranscription rdfs:subPropertyOf hasBody .
> >>
> >> 3.
> >> hasBody [ chars: "Placename"; rdf:type: "pelagios:Toponym" ; rdf:type
> "TranscribedPlace" ] .
> >>
> >> 4. (no transcription)
> >> hasBody [ rdf:type: "pelagios:Toponym" ] .
> >>
> >>
> >> Structure-wise these are very similar and I can see no advantage or
> disadvantage. I think it is a matter of convention.
> >> Is there a best practice?
> >>
> >> All the best,
> >> Sebastian
> >>
> >> Am 10.10.2013 21:36, schrieb Simon Rainer:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> as some of you know, the Pelagios project is concerned with annotating
> place references in different types of documents. Our normal case is that
> we have one annotation body that is simply a URI representing the place.
> >>>
> >>> In some cases, however, we also want to attach an actual transcription
> of the place name as found in the document. To keep annotations coherent
> (cases without transcription vs. cases with transcription) I'd like to add
> the transcription as a separate, second body (which should be fine, I
> guess?).
> >>>
> >>> Now a quick question/sanity check for the list: I want to explicitely
> indicate that the textual body is a transcription of a placename. Is the
> best way to do this to type the body? (The spec only speaks of using typing
> in terms of media types.) I.e. something like:
> >>>
> >>> hasBody: [ chars: "Placename"; rdf:type: "pelagios:Toponym" ]
> >>>
> >>> or should we having our own sub-property of hasBody instead?
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Rainer
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dipl. Inf. Sebastian Hellmann
> >> Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig
> >> Events:
> >> * NLP & DBpedia 2013 (http://nlp-dbpedia2013.blogs.aksw.org)
> >> Venha para a Alemanha como PhD:
> http://bis.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/csf
> >> Projects: http://nlp2rdf.org , http://linguistics.okfn.org ,
> http://dbpedia.org/Wiktionary , http://dbpedia.org
> >> Homepage: http://bis.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/SebastianHellmann
> >> Research Group: http://aksw.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2013 15:26:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:22:04 UTC