Re: Framing Use Cases (was: Annotating Bibliographic Information)

Hi Jacob,
It makes sense. I just can see lots of borderline situations.

I agree the key point is 'The intended role of annotations in your system
will be key'.
However, that is going to be hard to explain/capture/control/regulate.

I would be more of the idea to work out model/protocol and so on and then
let best practice emerge.
Obviously that is me.

Paolo



On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Jacob Jett <jgjett@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Paolo,
>
> Hope your holidays were good. You certainly can link descriptions to
> entities this way. But as I said this is a very heavy weight method. If
> your goal is to retrieve annotations then it is the best way but, if you
> want to grab people and drag their descriptions along with them or vice
> versa I'd look for a lighter weight standard that leverages the very clear
> semantics of A describes B and B describedBy A. With an annotation I have
> to dip into the motivation to know that the relationship between the target
> and body is A describes B.
>
> If description is a small percentage of your total annotations then it
> makes sense to just group them in with the rest. Does that make sense?
>
> The intended role of annotations in your system will be key. Annotations
> will be best when you have multiple motivations for them.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jacob
>
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Jacob,
>> (happy new year!)
>>
>> Aside: Of course we might argue whether or not you would really want to
>>> annotate a resource with its description. Description is a pretty ordinary
>>> day-to-day activity on the Web and elsewhere. Using a standard like OA to
>>> attach to descriptions to resources is a pretty heavy weight solution.
>>>
>>>
>> I would like to use annotations to attach personalized description to
>> scientific images (personal or shared with a group of collaborators). Why
>> shouldn't I be able to use annotation for that the same way I would use
>> annotation to tag or comment on them? That way I use the same tools, same
>> server, same search and same sharing mechanisms.
>>
>> I  don't think annotation is a static idea. It is fluid and mutable. My
>> description on an image, if I am an expert of the domain, might be picked
>> up to become the caption in the original page. In that case the annotation
>> would be embedded back in the content - The same way that a comment in
>> stackoverflow might generate additional edits to the original post. Or it
>> might become popular as annotation, even if it overshadows the original
>> caption.
>>
>> Once we have a model, I doubt we can forecast - or enforce - for what it
>> is going to be used.
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>  Again, I think the key here is the attachment/linking, and the fact
>>>> that we aren't talking about any kind of annotations, we're talking about
>>>> web annotations. The card in the card catalog isn't an annotation, but the
>>>> equivalent bibliographic record linked to the document is an annotation.
>>>> The scribble on the card in the card catalog is an annotation, but it isn't
>>>> a _*web*_ annotation, which is what this WG is about. And it's not an
>>>> annotation of the document, it's an annotation of the card in the card
>>>> catalog. The bibliographic record pasted onto the inside cover of the book
>>>> is an annotation, but it's not a web annotation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Does that work?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Dan Whaley [mailto:dwhaley@hypothes.is]
>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 07, 2015 3:31 PM
>>>> *To:* Denenberg, Ray; Benjamin Young
>>>> *Cc:* Web Annotation
>>>> *Subject:* Re: Framing Use Cases (was: Annotating Bibliographic
>>>> Information)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I create an annotation (public or private) on an amazon page for a
>>>> book that simply says “I own this” (perhaps as a tag)… then to me that’s a
>>>> perfectly valid annotation.   Isn’t that the equivalent of a card catalog
>>>> entry?  Perhaps the LoC annotates the canonical copy of an EPUB with a
>>>> holding record that says they have a physical copy of the book located in
>>>> their archive, when it was acquired.  I might discover that annotation, and
>>>> know that I can go see the physical copy— perhaps it’s a rare book, or an
>>>> illuminated manuscript.  That would be helpful to me, and I would be glad
>>>> they did that.  The addition of additional information about the condition
>>>> of the cover doesn’t somehow magically transform the record into an
>>>> annotation to me, the notion that a copy exists in some physical space is
>>>> enough by itself.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don’t think annotations have to augment the original source in a way
>>>> that “enhances” it semantically or provides contextual information.  That
>>>> is certainly one use of annotation— but not the exclusive one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A similar example is if I tag/recognize a song I’m listening to with
>>>> Shazam (Soundhound, et al).  That act simply says “I listened to this”.  It
>>>> doesn’t mean I "liked it", or "have it", but it’s still a useful act (to
>>>> me) and I should probably be able to export my Shazam “annotations" so I
>>>> can reuse them in other ways.  (Like creating a playlist).  It’s a shame
>>>> that these apps we use are not open today, but perhaps in the future they
>>>> will be, and perhaps the annotation data model can serve that use case.  I
>>>> don’t see why not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another one would be to recreate the Pocket app w/ a browser button
>>>> that simply creates a page level annotation, privately under my annotation
>>>> account, with a tag of my choice— “SaveForLater”— for instance.  Since I’m
>>>> annotating lots of other articles with “real annotations" having these
>>>> bookmarks added to my stream is useful, and allows me to search and filter
>>>> through one interface for different kinds of things.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TL;DR: The data model is agnostic to semantics.  In my mind, there’s no
>>>> more validity to an annotation that adds to the meaning of it’s target from
>>>> another that doesn’t.  Introducing that would require that you and I and
>>>> everyone else agree what is “meaningful", which is ... difficult.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On January 7, 2015 at 11:11:44 AM, Benjamin Young (
>>>> bigbluehat@hypothes.is) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   Hey Ray (et al),
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> First, thanks for contributing these use cases! You're one of the first
>>>> (and sadly only...) so far, and it's appreciated. :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Second, I'll admit to being confused by the use of "annotation"
>>>> (broadly) for things like Cover Art and Holding records. However, the paper
>>>> you sent around contained this valuable description:
>>>>
>>>> In the BIBFRAME view, the purpose of an annotation is to:
>>>>
>>>>    1. express an opinion, for example a review of a book;
>>>>    2. attach institution specific information, for example holdings of
>>>>    a book; or
>>>>    3. contribute enhancements to a resource description, for example
>>>>    cover art or summary descriptions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The key words that stood out to me are below (per list item):
>>>>
>>>> 1. "express an opinion"
>>>>
>>>> 2. "institution specific"
>>>>
>>>> 3. "contribute"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your paper made it clearer (at least to me) that the actors in the
>>>> stories were "sitting outside" the canonical data sources and / or were
>>>> generally creating data elsewhere first, then (perhaps) contributing it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am still a bit puzzled by the choice of the word "annotation" for #2
>>>> and #3 above, and perhaps you can clarify it further. I certainly qualify
>>>> as a "library layman." :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To me (at least), an annotation "equation" goes something like...
>>>>
>>>> original resource + annotation = a unique and greater whole
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In my head (at least), I don't feel like a card in a card catalog is an
>>>> annotation--simple a "statement of record" for that catalog.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, if that same card had the sentence, "The cover's torn...sorry"
>>>> scrawled on it, that note from the librarian would certainly be an
>>>> annotation--but I'm not sure I'd consider the card itself to be an
>>>> annotation...just a "database entry."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you could clarify why the word "annotation" was chosen for use
>>>> with holdings (#2), and that would further clear things up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again for providing the use cases, Ray. I hope some of my
>>>> musings are helpful. :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Take care,
>>>>
>>>> Benjamin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> P.S.: I now have a strong desire to go find an old library card catalog
>>>> somewhere and breathe in the mustiness.... :)
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Developer Advocate
>>>>
>>>> http://hypothes.is/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Doug - I responded in part last week and promised to get back to you on
>>>> the second part. Sorry for the delay  (holidays got in the way).
>>>>
>>>> Briefly, no, I do not agree with your  "exemplar theory" as the basis
>>>> for all use cases.  That's not to say I'm right and you're wrong, only to
>>>> say I think we need others to weigh in.
>>>>
>>>> I do not think it is useful to try to cast all annotations in terms of
>>>> (as you put it) "here's a bunch of people  in the wonderful future world of
>>>> web annotations! "  because the essence of the use case becomes lost in the
>>>> details. I think in many cases a succinct statement of the use case or
>>>> story  is more useful.   That said, I think it is very useful to have some
>>>> of the use cases expanded as you describe, but not all (or even most) of
>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> But again, I think we need other opinions on this.
>>>>
>>>> Ray
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>> > From: Doug Schepers [mailto:schepers@w3.org]
>>>> > Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 7:43 PM
>>>> > To: Denenberg, Ray; 'Web Annotation'
>>>> > Subject: Framing Use Cases (was: Annotating Bibliographic Information)
>>>> >
>>>> > Hi, Ray, folks–
>>>> >
>>>> > TL;DR:
>>>> >
>>>> > Let's describe our use cases in a way that highlights the most common
>>>> uses
>>>> > of Web Annotations.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Long-winded version:
>>>> >
>>>> > I took the liberty of converting your .doc file into HTML format
>>>> > (attached); this is the preferred format for W3C, for obvious reasons,
>>>> > not least of which is that it can be viewed in email clients and our
>>>> > online archives without opening it in a separate app. I hope this
>>>> helps
>>>> > the conversation.
>>>> >
>>>> > I took the further liberty of adding a couple of links that I found
>>>> > helpful in reading it; I didn't know before what BIBFRAME was, so I
>>>> > linked to the Wikipedia article on that; I also added a link to the
>>>> > BIBFRAME Annotation Model whitepaper, because I was confused about the
>>>> > way you were using the word "annotation". I hope my links help others
>>>> on
>>>> > this list.
>>>> >
>>>> > As I said on the last telcon, if the deliverables of this WG help your
>>>> > use case, that's great; if the data model or other specs can be
>>>> tweaked
>>>> > to be more helpful to your particular need, that seems like a good
>>>> idea.
>>>> >
>>>> > The web has become the overwhelming success it is today because people
>>>> > took the basic building blocks provided to them, and used them for
>>>> > creative purposes unforeseen. Few people would have thought at the
>>>> > beginning of the Web, "hey, let's take this document format and use it
>>>> > to build full-powered applications." But that's what we did, and
>>>> that's
>>>> > what makes it great.
>>>> >
>>>> > So, if you see some of the basic building blocks of Web Annotations
>>>> and
>>>> > think, "hey, we can use that to build a distributed bibliographic
>>>> > reference system that allows 'class inheritance' or 'subtyping' of
>>>> > bibliographic entries to add information (like whether our library
>>>> has a
>>>> > copy of this book)", then that's useful, especially if it means that
>>>> > some of that content can be directly exposed through the web more
>>>> > easily. If we don't have to do anything special to meet your use case,
>>>> > and it just works out of the box, even better!
>>>> >
>>>> > For me, however, that's not an exemplar of a Web Annotation. It's a
>>>> > specialized use with some overlap. Your technical terminology uses the
>>>> > word "annotation", but I think you mean it in a slightly different
>>>> sense
>>>> > than what I'd call an annotation (and more like what I'd call
>>>> > "inheritance").
>>>> >
>>>> > (For those not familiar with exemplar theory: if I ask you to name a
>>>> > type of bird, you're likely to say "pigeon" or "starling" or "hawk" or
>>>> > "duck"; you're less likely to say "ostrich", and even less likely
>>>> still
>>>> > to say "penguin". These are all fine birds, but the latter 2 have
>>>> fewer
>>>> > features in common with other birds. Members of a category that have
>>>> > more features in common with other members of that category are known
>>>> > as
>>>> > "exemplars".)
>>>> >
>>>> > If an annotation only has a link selection, and no body (e.g., a
>>>> > highlight), is it an annotation? How about if the body of the
>>>> annotation
>>>> > is simply a link to another lengthy resource, or there's no body but
>>>> two
>>>> > link selections? How about if the body of the annotation is a link to
>>>> an
>>>> > image or video, which is then rendered inline in the annotation
>>>> viewer?
>>>> > Yes, those are all annotations, but they aren't exemplars, in my
>>>> opinion.
>>>> >
>>>> > Why is this relevant? When we're collecting use cases, we're not just
>>>> > making a list of all possible uses for a technology. We're
>>>> communicating
>>>> > an aspirational goal for our desired outcome to a wide community of
>>>> > potential stakeholders, in an effort to get them involved because they
>>>> > see relevance to what they're doing; so you might think that we want
>>>> to
>>>> > cast the net as broadly as possible. But we're also trying to convince
>>>> > them that this effort is worth investing resources in, and that the
>>>> odds
>>>> > of success are high, which means that we are clear on our goals and
>>>> > priorities, and that we are focused on a set of smaller gains that
>>>> lead
>>>> > toward broader wins.
>>>> >
>>>> > With that in mind, my preference would be for our use cases and
>>>> > requirements to be framed in terms of those exemplars that the
>>>> broadest
>>>> > audience is likely to relate to. It might be as simple as casting the
>>>> > actors. So, when I think of your cover art example, I might say:
>>>> >
>>>> > Anna is reading a short story on her ebook reader, and the main
>>>> > character reminds her of a drawing by her friend; she annotates an
>>>> > instance of the character's name with a link to the drawing online.
>>>> Ben
>>>> > works at a library, and has gotten permission to add the short story
>>>> to
>>>> > their ebook collection; he wants to find cover art for it, so he
>>>> > searches an online annotation service for annotations on the short
>>>> story
>>>> > that include images, and finds Anna's annotation. Ben obtains
>>>> permission
>>>> > from the artist to use the image, and publishes the short story with
>>>> its
>>>> > new cover art.
>>>> >
>>>> > (I might have added some social aspect to it, like, "Ben replies to
>>>> > Anna's annotation asking for the source, and Anna connects him to her
>>>> > friend.")
>>>> >
>>>> > This still covers your use case, but it does so in a narrative that
>>>> > emphasizes different aspects of the desired ecosystem; it's got the
>>>> > distributed aspect, an end user reading and annotating a selection in
>>>> an
>>>> > ebook, online annotation services, linking to online image services,
>>>> > social media, search and discovery, all wrapped up in a story, with
>>>> > characters who have motivations. It feels less like "there's a
>>>> > collection of data in a database, we don't care how the data got
>>>> there,
>>>> > and we searched the database", and more like, "here's a bunch of
>>>> people
>>>> > in the wonderful future world of web annotations! Huzzah!" (And hey,
>>>> > maybe Anna works at a library, too, so this might be the very same
>>>> story
>>>> > you told.) It includes an exemplar act of annotation, something that
>>>> > could only happen with web annotations, rather than a story that could
>>>> > substitute "Google image search" for "annotation" (of course, Google
>>>> > could index annotations to add relevance to their image search...).
>>>> >
>>>> > You might think this is trivial, but I think it makes a real
>>>> difference
>>>> > in the story we're trying to tell people about this new thing called
>>>> > "Web Annotations", which they are trying to distinguish from other
>>>> > technologies.
>>>> >
>>>> > Does that seem reasonable to you?
>>>> >
>>>> > Regards-
>>>> > -Doug
>>>> >
>>>> > On 12/19/14 10:50 AM, Denenberg, Ray wrote:
>>>> > > At the recent call I promised to elaborate on the use cases I had
>>>> > > suggested, including cover art, and to try to explain why I think
>>>> that
>>>> > > cover art really is an annotation use case.   In order to do that I
>>>> need
>>>> > > to provide background on some of the thinking within the
>>>> > > library/bibliographic community about annotations (specifically the
>>>> > > thinking with the BIBFRAME project, http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/).
>>>> So I
>>>> > > have prepared a (roughly) two-and-a-half page discussion paper that
>>>> > > tries to provide background, in “layman” terms (i.e. for those not
>>>> > > familiar with library/bibliographic terminology).  The paper is
>>>> attached
>>>> > > and I hope you will take the time to read it and to comment.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > (Note: I am not sure if this is the proper way to contribute a
>>>> paper; if
>>>> > > not, let me know how.)
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Ray
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Paolo Ciccarese
>> Assistant Professor of Neurology, Harvard Medical School
>> Assistant in Neuroscience, Massachusetts General Hospital
>> Senior Information Scientist, MGH Biomedical Informatics Core
>> ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5156-2703
>>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the
>> addressee(s), may contain information that is considered
>> to be sensitive or confidential and may not be forwarded or disclosed to
>> any other party without the permission of the sender.
>> If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
>> immediately.
>>
>
>


-- 
Dr. Paolo Ciccarese
Assistant Professor of Neurology, Harvard Medical School
Assistant in Neuroscience, Massachusetts General Hospital
Senior Information Scientist, MGH Biomedical Informatics Core
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5156-2703

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the addressee(s),
may contain information that is considered
to be sensitive or confidential and may not be forwarded or disclosed to
any other party without the permission of the sender.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately.