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: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 09:00:08 -0600
Message-ID: <CABevsUHP8yJLa0WVx5HMFmDoh=DJq086Un9uhxNwgLbhyxBexA@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>
If you're going in the route of a transcription being a resource with a
label and no content, then it would be good to tag it as an oa:SemanticTag.


And Robert, the above route would be in the opposite direction to Shared
Canvas making them incompatible. Shared Canvas (and the IIIF Metadata API
that provides explicit recommendations on how to use the ontology in
practice) treats transcriptions as just a regular body, with a motivation
of sc:painting (for painting some content, of any format, on to the Canvas
that represents the page).

So if Shared Canvas compatibility is important, it would be good to align
now rather than later :)

R



On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 1:37 AM, Simon Rainer <Rainer.Simon@ait.ac.at>wrote:

>  Dear all,****
>
> ** **
>
> thanks for the comments on this, which were all very helpful! I’m going
> with the suggestion below, although I’m leaning towards using rdfs:label
> instead of cnt:chars, for the reason that Antoine pointed out. P.S.:
> readers of our blog (http://pelagios-project.blogspot.co.uk) will be able
> to get their hands on a first live sample of our updated RDF data **really
> ** soon ;-)****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers,****
>
> Rainer****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *Von:* Robert Sanderson [mailto:azaroth42@gmail.com]
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 16. Oktober 2013 17:26
> *An:* Simon Rainer
> *Cc:* Antoine Isaac; public-openannotation@w3.org
>
> *Betreff:* Re: Annotation body a transcription of the target****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> 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 Thursday, 17 October 2013 15:00:41 UTC

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