Re: [agenda} Web Annotation WG teleconf Agenda (2014-10-01)

Hi Luc,

To answer your questions before the call, and hopefully discuss them
further on it:

On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 2:15 AM, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> - Can an annotation have multiple hasBody? if yes, how do you distinguish
> their roles? if no, why not?
>
Yes, an Annotation can have multiple bodies.  I'm not entirely sure what
you mean by "role" here though.

- Can an annotation have multiple hasTarget? if yes, how do you distinguish
> their roles? if no, why not?
>
Yes, and as per bodies.

So each body is individually about each target.

See: http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/core.html#MultipleBodyTarget


> - Terminology: What is the origin of the term "hasBody", why body? Isn't
> it just an anchor
>    (happening to be "source", as opposed to "target")
>

Body comes from Annotea: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/annotation-ns# from
which both Open Annotation and Annotation Ontology derived their core
models.  When we reconciled the two models, it made sense to leave it as is.
The "has" comes from making it always a resource, rather than just a string
literal.


> - Is the notion of Anchor explicit in the model, do we have a type
> oa:Anchor (especially we want to have different
>     types of anchors for different media)?
>

That depends a bit on what you mean by Anchor :)

Open Annotation has two separate classes, SpecificResource and Selector.
The SpecificResource *identifies* the particular region of interest in a
resource.  The Selector *describes* how you can extract that region of
interest, given the resource's representation.

See: http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/specific.html#Specific



> - Slide 5: I am unclear what this "related to" represents.
>    Is there a way to express the type of the relation in the annotation?
>

The related to just tries to show the directionality of the annotation.
The Body/ies is somehow about the Target/s.

There is a set of Motivations that can be selected for the annotation, such
as tagging, commenting, linking or identifying.  We used SKOS here rather
than the RDF class hierarchy to allow for more descriptive relationships
(narrower, broader, similar etc) between motivations.

See: http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/core.html#Motivations

Hope that helps!



> With my PROV hat on, I have a few more questions, but I will leave them
> for later.
>

Look forwards to them :)

Rob