Re: [model] Clarifying annotation architecture

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