Re: [model] Modeling a Tweet: Tags

I tentatively disagree, Rob. When one expresses love about a thing by using
#love they generally also include a link to the thing (either by explicitly
including it in their tweet or by virtue of using a reply function) but in
either case the new tweet is an expression of love (for whatever resources
the tweet targets).

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015, 10:35 Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> The conflation of tags about the comment and tags about the target is
> something we should consider carefully when recommending any particular
> usage of the model in this space.  Translating from 140 characters and
> guessing the user's intent of the #hashtag convention seems unreliable at
> best.
>
> There's many examples of each in the twitter space.  A tweet that
> expresses #love for something is clearly about the reference, not that the
> user loves their own tweet :)
>
> R
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Randall Leeds <randall@bleeds.info>
> wrote:
>
>> I have long believed there is a substantive difference between what
>> systems commonly call tags and hashtags, and believe that this is
>> demonstrated in common practice.
>>
>> A tag is often applied to a separate entity.
>>
>> A hashtag is applied to its bearing entity.
>>
>> The example provided, to my mind, should have the tweet text as the
>> target for some annotation.
>>
>> One can get fancier with this and say that each hashtag should be
>> rendered as a separate annotation on the test with positional selectors
>> describing the offsets of the hashtag texts in the tweet text, with the
>> motivation to link these to the full URI expansion of that hashtag (such as
>> the URL of that hashtag's collection/search page).
>>
>> For an example of this in the wild, see the app.net API where mentions,
>> links, hashtags, etc are described by a property of the status update
>> called "annotations".
>>
>> A hashtag annotates the tweet.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015, 09:28 Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Dinesh–
>>>
>>> Thanks for tweaking this.
>>>
>>> The issue I was trying to resolve was not the distributed part, which
>>> you picked up on, but rather the conflict introduced by the data model
>>> having a strict separation between tagging and comment bodies.
>>>
>>> If anyone has any thoughts on that, please let us know. I'm not
>>> completely satisfied with my solution, but I can't think how else to do
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Regards–
>>> –Doug
>>>
>>> On 6/18/15 7:09 AM, TB Dinesh wrote:
>>> > Thanks Doug for this example.
>>> >
>>> > The way we have been thinking about this (in the swtr.us framework) is
>>> > that annotations will lead to 3rd party services that understand that
>>> > this (@id and t1 below) annotation maps to a tweet model and can
>>> > assist in tweeting it for you, provided the service is permitted to
>>> > look through your annotation repo.
>>> >
>>> > I will first try to re purpose your JSON-LD example so it reads a bit
>>> different.
>>> > First the annotation is in a repo some where (rewriting the @id to just
>>> > drive home that this object (t1) is identified by another creator --
>>> > and not twitter).
>>> > Also am using body1, body2 and body3 are local ids (with effective ids
>>> > being t1.body1, t1.body2, t1.body3) and dont know what the right
>>> > syntax is to do this.
>>> > Note that I changed the motivation to tweeting (from commenting) so as
>>> > to make it
>>> > easy for the 3rd party service to pick this up for tweeting.
>>> >
>>> > t1:
>>> >
>>> > {
>>> >    "@id": "https://annotation.repo/azaroth42/607727122975739905",
>>> >    "@type": "oa:Annotation",
>>> >    "annotatedBy": "https://twitter.com/azaroth42/",
>>> >    "annotatedAt": "2015-06-07T12:00:00Z",
>>> >    "serializedAt": "2013-02-04T17:53:00Z-8",
>>> >    "body": [
>>> >      {
>>> >        "@id": "body1"
>>> >        "motivation": "oa:tweeting",
>>> >        "value" : "Been a while. Indexing my phd thesis transcription as
>>> > #openannotations towards #iiif search demo implementation",
>>> >      },
>>> >      {
>>> >        "@id": "body2"
>>> >        "motivation": "oa:tagging",
>>> >        "value" : "openannotations",
>>> >      },
>>> >      {
>>> >        "@id": "body3"
>>> >        "motivation": "oa:tagging",
>>> >        "value" : "iiif",
>>> >      }
>>> >    ],
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > Now #openannotations and tag "openannotations" will get different
>>> > services to pick up the intent. Twitter would know what to do with
>>> > #openannotations and t1's tags are not very useful for twitter, which
>>> > another service can indeed help azaroth42 connect to other meanings of
>>> > 42 if any using these tags.
>>> >
>>> > -d
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> Hi, folks–
>>> >>
>>> >> We've talked before about how different kinds of popular social
>>> media, like
>>> >> Twitter tweets or Facebook posts, could be modeled as annotations.
>>> >>
>>> >> Tim Cole put together a diagram of this [1], and I made a slide
>>> inspired by
>>> >> Tim's diagram [2] (use the down arrow to step through the slide).
>>> >>
>>> >> But all the recent talk of multiple bodies and motivations made me
>>> realize
>>> >> that there may be something hard to represent in the data model:
>>> inline
>>> >> hashtags in a tweet.
>>> >>
>>> >> As an example, here's the text from a tweet by Rob Sanderson, from 7
>>> June
>>> >> [3], which contains two inline hashtags:
>>> >> "Been a while. Indexing my phd thesis transcription as
>>> #openannotations
>>> >> towards #iiif search demo implementation"
>>> >>
>>> >> Inline hashtags are pretty common, and they blend tags and comment
>>> into a
>>> >> single common body. You can't remove the tags from the comment body,
>>> because
>>> >> they're part of the sentence structure; you can't only represent the
>>> tags as
>>> >> part of the comment body, because they have special status as search
>>> terms
>>> >> [4].
>>> >>
>>> >> How can we model this?
>>> >>
>>> >> The best I could come up with is to duplicate the hashtags in both the
>>> >> comment body and in their own bodies. Here's some example JSON-LD
>>> (please
>>> >> excuse the imprecise/incorrect inclusion of motivation on each body,
>>> it's
>>> >> just illustrative.):
>>> >>
>>> >> {
>>> >>    "@id": "https://twitter.com/azaroth42/status/607727122975739905",
>>> >>    "@type": "oa:Annotation",
>>> >>    "annotatedBy": "https://twitter.com/azaroth42/",
>>> >>    "annotatedAt": "2015-06-07T12:00:00Z",
>>> >>    "serializedAt": "2013-02-04T17:53:00Z-8",
>>> >>    "body": [
>>> >>      {
>>> >>        "@id": "http://example.org/body1"
>>> >>        "motivation": "oa:commenting",
>>> >>        "value" : "Been a while. Indexing my phd thesis transcription
>>> as
>>> >> #openannotations towards #iiif search demo implementation",
>>> >>      },
>>> >>      {
>>> >>        "@id": "http://example.org/body2"
>>> >>        "motivation": "oa:tagging",
>>> >>        "value" : "openannotations",
>>> >>      },
>>> >>      {
>>> >>        "@id": "http://example.org/body3"
>>> >>        "motivation": "oa:tagging",
>>> >>        "value" : "iiif",
>>> >>      }
>>> >>    ],
>>> >> }
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Another solution might be to allow nested bodies, but that seems like
>>> it
>>> >> could get complicated.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thoughts?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> [1]
>>> >>
>>> http://www.w3.org/Talks/2015/schepers-annotation-journalism/data-model-anatomy.png
>>> >> [2]
>>> >>
>>> http://www.w3.org/Talks/2015/schepers-annotation-journalism/data-model-anatomy.svg#showall
>>> >> [3] https://twitter.com/azaroth42/status/607727122975739905
>>> >> [4] https://twitter.com/hashtag/iiif
>>> >>
>>> >> Regards–
>>> >> –Doug
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> Rob Sanderson
> Information Standards Advocate
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305
>