Re: [model] Clarifying annotation architecture

Sorry, yes that JSON is fine (after s/kind/@type/).  It must be "source"
(as per Frederick's example) not "@id" (as per my previous ones), which I
missed.

So for an embedded comment with a role, it would look like:

{
  "@type": "Annotation",
  "target": "uri-for-target",
  "body":
    {
      "role": "commenting",
      "source":
        {
          "@type": "EmbeddedContent",
          "chars": "Some Text here",
          "format": "text/plain"
        }
    }
}


Rob

On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 4:01 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

> (Coming late in the discussion, having been on vacations)
>
>
> > On 23 Jul 2015, at 17:34 , Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com> wrote:
> >
> > (not as chair)
> >
>
> And not as a staff contact:-)
>
> > Rob
> >
> > yes that helps quite a bit.
> >
> > I still see a problem explaining to JSON (non-turtle, non-RDF,
> non-JSON-LD) people why what looks like straightforward JSON is wrong,
> since they don't care about SpecificResources and triples..
> >
> > if there were no JSON-LD and no linked data, the following *would be
> fine* JSON, right?
> >
> > {
> >  "kind": "Annotation",
> >  "target" : "some-uri.html",
> >  "body": {
> >    "source: "meme-image.jpg",
> >    "role": "commenting"
> >  }
> > }
> >
>
> Rob, why isn't this structure o.k.?
>
> I have ran this through the JSON-LD playground (adding a prefix to the
> properties to avoid writing a separate context) and the result, in terms of
> N-Triples, is this:
>
> _:b0 <o:body> _:b1 .
> _:b0 <o:kind> "Annotation" .
> _:b0 <o:target> "some-uri.html" .
> _:b1 <o:role> "commenting" .
> _:b1 <o:source> "meme-image.jpg" .
>
> translated back into Turtle for readability:
>
> _:b0
>         <o:kind> "Annotation",
>         <o:target> "some-uri.html",
>         <o:body> [
>                 <o:role> "commenting",
>                 <o:source> "meme-image.jpg"
>         ] .
>
>
> The only difference I can see is that there is no explicit typing for
> SpecificResource. So what? Only RDF people really care about the exact
> typing, and if we define the vocabulary in such a way that the domain of
> "source" is SpecificResource, then we got it.
>
> What do I miss?
>
> Ivan
>
> > This is why the problem is "non-obvious".
> >
> > Is there a way to transform this via implementation to using
> SpecificResource by default? Did this come up in the JSON-LD discussions?
> >
> > Does this make the issue clear from the JSON implementer point of view?
> >
> > regards, Frederick
> >
> > Frederick Hirsch
> >
> > fjhirsch.com
> > @fjhirsch
> >
> >
> >> On Jul 23, 2015, at 11:02 AM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Sure!
> >>
> >> Good:
> >>
> >> _:anno a oa:Annotation ;
> >>  oa:hasTarget <some-uri.html> ;
> >>  oa:hasBody _:specres .
> >>
> >> _:specres a oa:SpecificResource ;
> >>  oa:motivatedBy oa:commenting ;
> >>  oa:hasSource <meme-image.jpg> .
> >>
> >>
> >> Bad:
> >>
> >> _:anno a oa:Annotation ;
> >>  oa:hasTarget <some-uri.html> ;
> >>  oa:hasBody <meme-image.jpg> .
> >>
> >> <meme-image.jpg> oa:motivatedBy oa:commenting .
> >>
> >>
> >> (Or substitute some new predicate like oa:role or whatever, per Tim
> Cole's comment that specific resources aren't really motivated in the same
> way that annotations are)
> >>
> >> Hope that helps :)
> >>
> >> Rob
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov> wrote:
> >> Rob – still trying to grasp this.  Could you show how this would look
> done the “right” way, I.e. as a specific resource,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> AND   please write both (the bad example and the good)  in turtle, not
> json-ld.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Ray
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Robert Sanderson [mailto:azaroth42@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 10:30 AM
> >> To: Denenberg, Ray
> >> Cc: Jacob Jett; Frederick Hirsch; W3C Public Annotation List
> >>
> >>
> >> Subject: Re: [model] Clarifying annotation architecture
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> We shouldn't (must not) do this:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> {
> >>
> >>  "@type": "Annotation",
> >>
> >>  "target" : "some-uri.html",
> >>
> >>  "body": {
> >>
> >>    "@id": "meme-image.jpg",
> >>
> >>    "role": "commenting"
> >>
> >>  }
> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> As meme-image.jpg might have another role in a different annotation
> (replacing, in Doug's example)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Rob
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Jacob – No, I’m afraid I don’t see that the “sky colored red”
> example applies to my question, however, if you (or someone) could write,
> in RDF syntax, an example annotation, which does specifically what it is we
> are saying we shouldn’t do …  specifically: attach a motivation to a body
> (and more specifically, where the body is an image or some other non-rdf
> resource) ... that would help.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Ray
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: jgjett@gmail.com [mailto:jgjett@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jacob
> Jett
> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 5:16 PM
> >> To: Denenberg, Ray
> >> Cc: Robert Sanderson; Frederick Hirsch; W3C Public Annotation List
> >>
> >>
> >> Subject: Re: [model] Clarifying annotation architecture
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Ray,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> This is a distinctly RDF thing. Essentially the triples are all
> distinct assertions.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Imagine that I told you, "the sky is red". In ttl we might write the
> assertion this way --
> >>
> >>     Sky colored Red .
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> This statement is true at certain points in time. Unfortunately RDF
> does not have a way to scope the assertion to certain points in time (or in
> the roles example, specific contexts). So from the SemWeb perspective "Sky
> colored Red ." and "Sky colored Blue ." are both true at all times and in
> all places. Using the specific resource allows us to scope the assertions,
> e.g., Sky@time@place colored Red .
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Is that example helpful at all?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I think Rob's suggestion is a reasonable work around for this role
> issue. It should be invisible to those who don't care about SemWeb issues
> and makes the data reasonably actionable for those who do.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Jacob
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _____________________________________________________
> >>
> >> Jacob Jett
> >> Research Assistant
> >> Center for Informatics Research in Science and Scholarship
> >> The Graduate School of Library and Information Science
> >> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
> >> 501 E. Daniel Street, MC-493, Champaign, IL 61820-6211 USA
> >> (217) 244-2164
> >> jjett2@illinois.edu
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov> wrote:
> >>
> >> There is a fundamental piece of this that I’m missing.
> >>
> >> {
> >>
> >>  "@type": "Annotation",
> >>
> >>  "target": "some-uri.html",
> >>
> >>  "body": {
> >>
> >>    "@type": "SpecificResource",
> >>
> >>    "motivation" : "editing",
> >>
> >>    "source": "meme-image.jpg"
> >>
> >>  }
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> You create a new resource (specific resource) in order to associate a
> motivation (editing) with the original resource (source).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> And you do this to avoid  “directly assigning a role to the original
> resource”.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I understand the reason why.  What I don’t understand is how it is
> proposed to do the latter in the first place.  In the example, the original
> resource is an image. Not like it’s an RDF description that you can stick
> an RDF  triple into.
> >>
> >>
> >> What am I missing here?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Ray
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Robert Sanderson [mailto:azaroth42@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 2:45 PM
> >> To: Frederick Hirsch
> >> Cc: W3C Public Annotation List
> >> Subject: Re: [model] Clarifying annotation architecture
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> * Associate the role with the body directly.  Fails because it makes
> the body un-reusable, which for the image/video or similar case is not
> acceptable.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> This statement is a key issue and I think Doug was asking about this as
> well during the call.
> >> The failure scenario is not clear. Un-resuable  : re-used by whom and
> for what?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Reused anywhere by anyone for anything, but most importantly reused as
> a body in a different annotation with a different role.
> >>
> >> As per Doug's example, you could not use the meme image as a comment in
> one annotation and a replacement in another annotation.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> If I forget the semantic web (for a moment) I can have an object, say a
> body, that has properties, including hasSegment or role and two bodies
> could have different values for the properties.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sure. If I forget that I need to close my tags and put quotes around my
> single token attributes, I end up with SGML ... but that sure isn't XML.
> Or if we conveniently forget about HTTP requirements, we could not worry
> about all those pesky headers. We could just stuff everything in the URL
> ... that would be much simpler, no? Then you would only ever need to do a
> GET, and could type it into your browser bar.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The only re-use issue would be an implementation optimization (e.g. I
> don't want to duplicate an embedded image/video to save space)
> >>
> >> In semantic web terms:
> >> annotation1 has body1.
> >> annotation1 has body2.
> >> body1 hasRole A.
> >> body2 hasRole B.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> annotation2 has body1
> >>
> >> body1 hasRole B.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Now body1 has both A and B roles.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> so where is the problem, and where is the re-use?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> There was no problem until someone else (annotation2) also assigned a
> different role to the body, and now it has both of them at once.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> * Associate the role (motivation) with a specific resource. Works as
> expected without changing the semantics, breaking linked data, or
> introducing any new classes or properties.
> >>
> >> isn't a body a resource? If it isn't a resource, what is it?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Well... the preferred answer would be yes, it's a resource.  But it's
> also a literal string :P
> >>
> >> However snark aside, I'm not sure as to what's prompting the question?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Perhaps to clarify the bullet:  ... with a oa:SpecificResource.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> {
> >>
> >>  "@type": "Annotation",
> >>
> >>  "target": "some-uri.html",
> >>
> >>  "body": {
> >>
> >>    "@type": "SpecificResource",
> >>
> >>    "motivation" : "editing",
> >>
> >>    "source": "meme-image.jpg"
> >>
> >>  }
> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> R
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Rob Sanderson
> >>
> >> Information Standards Advocate
> >>
> >> Digital Library Systems and Services
> >>
> >> Stanford, CA 94305
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Rob Sanderson
> >>
> >> Information Standards Advocate
> >>
> >> Digital Library Systems and Services
> >>
> >> Stanford, CA 94305
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Rob Sanderson
> >> Information Standards Advocate
> >> Digital Library Systems and Services
> >> Stanford, CA 94305
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>
>
>
>
>


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