Re: [model] Modeling a Tweet: Tags

Looking at the pattern Doug proposes I have a few questions in-line below.

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 2:25 AM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi, folks–
>
> {snipped stuff we've already discussed}


> 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",
>     }
>   ],
> }
>
>
I suppose my first question is, do you need to dump out the content like
this? If the tweet already has a URL, couldn't you just have a pattern like
"value" : "URL" ? Does the extra granularity add something to this
annotation?

Assuming body2 and body3 are "about" the target then what you have here
should be ok (also assuming body2 and body3 are specific resources).

If however, body2 and body3 are about body1, then we need a different
approach. We've already discussed modeling it as separate annotations but,
we could also model body1 as a named graph (i.e. structured body). This is
advantageous because it would let us import and preserve the contextual
information regarding what roles the content of body2 and body3 play in the
tweet document. The downside is more structure and more complicated
implementation (for what goes into body1's value anyway).

This is sort of like Doug's idea of nested bodies. Nesting bodies (and
targets) has also been broached in the past. Almost nobody liked this idea
though because, HyTime...

Of course if RDF containers already worked like this...

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



>
> 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
>
>