W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-annotation@w3.org > July to December 2000

Re: Types of annotation

From: Phil Cross <phil.cross@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 23:21:42 +0100
Message-ID: <39EA2DF6.22F3C1CF@bristol.ac.uk>
To: www-annotation@w3.org
>

Ralph,

I think we are in broad agreement, looking at your Annotation schema
slide (http://www.w3.org/2000/Talks/www9-annotations/slide6-0.html) and
your paper on the annotation system.

The obvious difference that strikes me though is that in this diagram,
all the info, ie the content that comprises the substance of the
annotation, is contained within a separate document, linked to the
annotation with the body property. This is clearly useful in creating
links between separate documents (you could have, as the body, a url
that pulled out a catalogue record from a subject gateway, I guess).

However, for our project we're producing a metadata set for evaluating
health info Web sites, and I think we see these metadata as also being
properties of the annotation object, in addition to the metadata _about_
it. (Although after subsequent discussion with Libby Miller, who has been
developing our RDF comment store technology here, I'm not so sure about this -

she'll be sending in her own comments on this later).

It seems then that there are these two approaches - the information
comprising the annotation being a separate document linked to an
annotation object using the body property; or the information consisting
of separate bits of metadata, each being a property of the annotation
object. These approaches seem to me to be compatible in terms of the
underlying understanding of what the annotation object actually
represents, that is in both cases the metadata or the separate document
are simply constituents parts of the overall annotation.

Phil

PS I've been chatting to Libby Miller, who has been developing our RDF comment
store technology here, about this and she'll be sending in a further reply to
this .

>
> From: Ralph R. Swick (swick@w3.org)
> Date: Thu, Oct 12 2000
>
>    * Previous message: Phil Cross: "Types of annotation"
>    * In reply to: Phil Cross: "Types of annotation"
>    * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>    * Other mail archives: [this mailing list] [other W3C mailing lists]
>    * Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message-Id: <200010121801.OAA16335@tux.w3.org>
> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 14:00:24 -0400
> To: Phil Cross <phil.cross@bristol.ac.uk>
> From: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>
> Cc: www-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Types of annotation
>
> Hi, Phil.
>
> At 04:28 PM 10/12/2000 +0100, Phil Cross wrote:
> ...
> >I feel it is necessary to somehow differentiate between these different
> >annotation types, so that it is easy to see what is available for a
> >particular site, and separate annotations by type when presenting them
> >to users; the question is, what is the best way of doing this?
>
> You give a nice concise motivation for the question.  I'll open
> with the caveat that there might not be one "best".  We can
> share our ideas and see which of them survive the test of
> implementation and time.
>
> >The basic structure for the RDF triples of comments or annotations, that
> >we currently use, is to have an annotationID as a unique ID, which has
> >properties such as 'annotates' (for the URI of the Web page), DC.Title,
> >DC.subject, etc.
>
> That sounds nearly identical to what we've been doing in
> an annotation service design here in a "live early adoption"
> project at W3C.  We talked about it at WWW9 DevDay and
> have continued to work on it as time permits.  We're very
> close to being comfortable showing it more publicly again.
>
> "The W3C Collaborative Web Annotation Project ... or how to have
> fun while building an RDF infrastructure"
> http://www.w3.org/2000/Talks/www9-annotations/
> announced in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-annotation/2000JanJun/0023.html
>
> >  I'm wondering if we should add an extra property called
> >annotationType, and try and define some standard values for this. Or
> >perhaps the 'annotates' property itself should have subclasses (e.g.
> >'comments' or 'evaluates', or should the annotationID be subclassed?
>
> We have defined a generic annotation class and then subclasses
> of that to declare 'types' of annotations.  We use the rdf:type property
> to convey the class of a specific instance of an annotation; that is,
> the semantic intent of the author when the annotation was created.
>
> We believe that annotations can in general have multiple types; that is,
> a single instance of an annotation can simultaneously belong in
> several classes.
>
> -Ralph
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    * Previous message: Phil Cross: "Types of annotation"
>    * In reply to: Phil Cross: "Types of annotation"
>    * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>    * Other mail archives: [this mailing list] [other W3C mailing lists]
>    * Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

--
Phil Cross
Institute for Learning & Research Technology
Bristol University
8-10 Berkeley Square
Bristol BS8 1HH

Email: phil.cross@bristol.ac.uk
Tel.: +44(0)117-928-7113
Received on Sunday, 15 October 2000 18:10:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:54 UTC