RE: Annotations at Europeana

Hi Rob,

Thank you for your quick input! It is great to have this feedback from the community!

Please see my answers and questions below...

Best,
Hugo

Hugo Manguinhas
Technical R&D Coordination

T: +31 (0)70 314 0967
M:
E: Hugo.Manguinhas@europeana.eu
Skype: hugo.manguinhas

Transform the world with culture. Find out how at our new and improved Europeana Pro: http://pro.europeana.eu

Europeana<http://www.europeana.eu/> makes Europe's culture available for all, across borders and generations and for creative re-use - follow how at #AllezCulture
Disclaimer: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this email. Please notify the sender immediately by email if you have received this email by mistake and delete this email from your system.

________________________________
From: Robert Sanderson [azaroth42@gmail.com]
Sent: 20 April 2015 18:09
To: Hugo Manguinhas
Cc: W3C Public Annotation List
Subject: Re: Annotations at Europeana



Hi Hugo,

Overall it looks great :) Very happy to see Europeana enabling annotation!

For example 2b, did you mean to give it the motivation oa:commenting or oa:tagging?
If it's a tag, then the body resource should also have @type: oa:Tag (and the motivation would be oa:tagging)
See: http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#tags

HM: Thanks for spotting it! Initially we had the motivation as oa:commenting since we had considered to support text annotations as just simple comments, but once we understood that HistoryPin makes this distinction we shifted our scenario to tagging and forgot to change the motivation accordingly...

HM: But, would the first example be ok for a tagging scenario? And also, if you wanted to represent several distinct tags (e.g. "Great White Fleet", "United States Navy", "Warship") for the same object, would it be ok to have multiple bodies, or should them be split into several annotations? From a conceptual and functional point of view, it would be more interesting to split since it would allow them to be individually referenced/commented...

For the linking use case, the semantic tag pattern is very interesting and pretty easy to understand what's being asserted. However if the relationship is only correct in one direction, then this wouldn't work as the targets are not ordered.

HM: But, if you have a bidirectional relation, would you prefer the one using just the targets? I guess another side effect of this, is that you can have more than two objects being linked together and use the body to state the context/meaning that binds them.

The easiest way is to have the subject as the body, and the object as the target.  Then oa:linking is blandly saying that they're related somehow.   This is your 1b.

HM: Agree... and what if you needed to state a specific type/kind of relation?

Option 2 is currently not explicitly supported, but has been discussed on the conference calls and your pattern is exactly what we came up with to support the use case.  My concern with the pattern is the redundancy between body graph and annotation graph -- the both essentially say the same thing, and could thus be simpler by just asserting the relationship as a single triple. You lose the provenance of course.

HM: This means that both WA and OA do not support it, or just WA? I kind of like that the body graph is distinguished from the annotation graph as they really seat in different planes... this way, it is possible to have different and possibly conflicting assertions.

So unless there's additional requirements, to me option 1b is the easiest.

HM: Btw, we used the oa:equivalentTo property to represent the link to the anotation webpage on HistoryPin, but we feel that it may not have been the best choice as the webpage is not dereferenceable and it does not clearly state the provenance of the annotation. Do you have a better suggestion for it? rdf:seeAlso or some property from the provenance ontology?

Hope that helps!

Rob





On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 5:54 AM, Hugo Manguinhas <Hugo.Manguinhas@europeana.eu<mailto:Hugo.Manguinhas@europeana.eu>> wrote:
Dear all,

I am Hugo Manguinhas from Europeana.eu, Europe's cultural heritage portal.. In the scope of our Ev3 project, we are developing a pilot with HistoryPin (www.historypin.org<http://www.historypin.org>) to have roundtripping of annotations between the HistoryPin's platform and Europeana, which will become available in our portal. As it will be our first real support for annotations, we decided to start small and therefore we will focus on only two simple scenarios: tagging of objects with text, and linking between objects. For this we created a google doc [1] expressing how these two scenarios can be modelled using the new WebAnnotation data model. A more ambitious work on annotation will come in the scope of other projects like the eSounds project as you can see on this requirements doc [2].

We would appreciate your feedback on this work, in specific to the document on WA modelling [1].

[1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yw1uJdf76v3StXST8x16TReB8FmOLw5LuWOzZz4lSiM
[2] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bGcH8gMjdyzw4tZlwH5mc2OBvK3lQE-F0mSuCzqgPqA

Thanks in advance!

Best,
Hugo




--
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305