W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-annotation@w3.org > August 2015

Re: Roles, multiple bodies, and creating wiki page of potential solution

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:18:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CABevsUE2uFt1B0Jm8n81L5YaptwTMFKgZNEkjjS_wGFQzRAbzg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Cole, Timothy W" <t-cole3@illinois.edu>
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>, W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
Hi Tim,

That works for literals but not URIs, and was one of the deficiencies in
the CG model that we were trying to get rid of for SemanticTags.

(e.g. a Video could be a Comment and a Reply in different annotations)

Rob


On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Cole, Timothy W <t-cole3@illinois.edu>
wrote:

> One more semantically valid approach to raise as a compromise possibility
> for the multi-body / role issue. We currently allow this:
>
> "body": "paris"
>
> If you want to identify "paris" as a tag, then you clearly have to say a
> little more. We currently tell you to do this:
>
>   "body": { "type": ["Tag", "EmbeddedContent"],"value": "paris"}
>
>
> How unnatural is this to plain JSON developers?
>
>
> If it is acceptable, then I would propose extending this approach to do
> this:
>
>   "body": { "type": ["Comment", "EmbeddedContent"],"value": "paris"}
>
> (where Comment can be replaced by versions of our motivation vocabulary...)
>
> -Tim Cole
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Cole, Timothy W
> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 17:03
> To: 'Frederick Hirsch'
> Cc: 'W3C Public Annotation List'
> Subject: RE: Roles, multiple bodies, and creating wiki page of potential
> solution
>
> For those who might be interested, I did create a wiki page illustrating
> most of the proposed ways so far raised to describe (and thereby
> differentiate) the non-multiplicity roles played by individual Bodies /
> Targets included in a multi-Body / Target Annotation:
>
>
> https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Expressing_Role_in_Multi-Body_Annotations
>
> I created 2 multi-body annotations and 1 multi-target annotation as
> examples (scenarios), and then created serializations in both JSON and
> Turtle illustrating the various approaches. The annotations created lack
> required annotation provenance, but otherwise include (I think) all of the
> MUST and SHOULD triples required by our data model.  The multi-target
> scenario is a bit of a stretch -- I suspect either we don't need to worry
> about multi-Target use cases or we need to revise and maybe augment our
> current list of Motivation terms to better handle multi-Target use cases.
>
> The first example includes 3 bodies: a Textual Body, a SemanticTag Body,
> and a SpecificResource derived from a YouTube Video.
>
> The second example has 2 Textual Bodies, and the third example has 2 Web
> page Targets.
>
> The approaches illustrated have mostly been discussed on the list, except
> for the last approach which would type Bodies and Targets according to
> their role in the Annotation (which will likely make Rob cringe a little).
>
> Anyway, may be helpful for our discussion Wednesday and beyond in case you
> find the email links Fredrick provide not quite enough.
>
> Rob, Fredrick, since this page is transient, I did not try to link from
> the WG Wiki's home page.  Feel free if you think that useful.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tim Cole
>
>


-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305
Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2015 16:18:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:39 UTC