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

Re: Annotation body a transcription of the target

From: Robert Casties <casties@mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 12:06:16 +0200
Message-ID: <525FB698.8080605@mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de>
To: public-openannotation@w3.org
Dear all,

Sorry for being late to the discussion but we are also very interested
in building a tool for scholars to use in transcribing little parts of
documents as annotations of images where the parts could later be
collected into bigger transcription documents.

Therefore I think it would be nice to have a common mechanism for
similar uses of OAC that I see here with Pelagios and with Shared
Canvas. How would we do that?

Should we have a common Motivation?

How would a tool know which Body is the transcription? Any one
containing text? All bodies may be a kind of transcription, so this
seems sensible.

Regards

	Robert C.

On 16.10.13 17:26, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 


-- 
Dr. Robert Casties -- Information Technology Group
Max Planck Institute for the History of Science
Boltzmannstr. 22, D-14195 Berlin
Tel: +49/30/22667-342 Fax: -299
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2013 10:06:51 UTC

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