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

RE: [model] Clarifying annotation architecture

From: Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:21:23 -0400
To: "'Frederick Hirsch'" <w3c@fjhirsch.com>, "'W3C Public Annotation List'" <public-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0EEF938438DEF843A0AAAC358E4A9874016F7761@LCXCLMB03.LCDS.LOC.GOV>
Well as I noted in a recent email, I don't think it helps clarify matters to talk in terms of abstractions like "Global Identity" and "Open World Assumption".  

But Rob recently supplied an example which I think provides complete clarity on why you cannot include a motivation property in a body.  Although he used as an example "hasSegment" , and the example illustrates why we need to create a specific resource rather than consider the segment to be a property of the source resource, the same reasoning would apply to a motivation.

To quote Rob:

For example, you cannot say that an image has a segment, like this:
 
{
"@id": "example.org/anno1",
"@type": "Annotation",
"target": {
  "@id": "example.org/logo.jpg",
  "hasSegment": "xywh=0,0,100,100"
}
 
Because that segment is only true for the target of that particular annotation.  Another annotation might annotate the same image with a different segment:
 
{
"@id": "example.org/anno2",
"@type": "Annotation",
"target": {
  "@id": "example.org/logo.jpg",
  "hasSegment": "xywh=512,512,100,100"
}
 

Doug - does that help any?   --Ray


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frederick Hirsch [mailto:w3c@fjhirsch.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 12:29 PM
> To: W3C Public Annotation List
> Subject: [model] Clarifying annotation architecture
> 
> (not as chair)
> 
> I think Doug brought up some important concerns on the call today about the
> visibility and impact of semantic web constraints on the annotation architecture,
> in particular the model.
> 
> Here are some statements that I think we agree are true:
> 
> 1. Our goal is wide adoption of Web Annotations by end users and
> implementers.
> 
> 2. Many of these users and implementers neither know nor care about the
> semantic web; however we see value in having an underlying semantic web
> basis, hidden from those who don't care. We expect this will offer power and
> flexibility enabling more use cases in the future.
> 
> Our goal is to build on a linked data/semantic web technology foundation while
> making it invisible to implementers or users that don't know or care.
> 
> 3. We have use cases such as associating multiple 'tasks' in a single annotation:
> e.g comment on target and also provide replacement action on same target.
> 
> 4. We need a clean and straight-forward model to support these use cases.
> 
> Here is the issue that appears to have come up:
> 
> Without understanding linked data, it seems that we could model the related
> tasks as a single annotation with different roles on each part (per use case task).
> 
> From a linked data perspective, the issue appears to be that all triples
> (assertions) are global scope leading to complexities that make no sense to
> those unaware of the semantic web relationship to annotations.
> 
> We appear in the discussion to be creating complicated approaches to enable
> global triples while solving the annotation need.
> 
> I am not a semantic web expert, but wouldn't treating each annotation as a
> separate graph (in the case where there are multiple 'tasks') solve the global
> triple scope problem, without requiring any more than a note to semantic web
> implementers?
> 
> Perhaps someone can elaborate with a clear and short summary of the
> problem we need to solve and the potential solutions to date.  Corrections on
> what I noted above are also welcome.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> regards, Frederick
> 
> Frederick Hirsch
> 
> www.fjhirsch.com
> @fjhirsch
> 
Received on Wednesday, 22 July 2015 17:21:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:38 UTC