Re: multiple bodies and motivations

The model we have basically ends at the body relationship. We recommend
that its type be specified, but nothing else.

I don't understand why an image couldn't have a property for this, but I'm
also not convinced of a need to specify any such property.

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015, 17:40 Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov> wrote:

> “there is very little we can realistically do to mandate how specific
> communities will make extensions for use cases that are outside of the
> annotation model.”
>
>
>
> Right, we can’t mandate interoperability.
>
>
>
> But I don’t understand the part about outside the annotation model.  If
> it’s an annotation outside the model then it is out of scope for us anyway,
> right?  Anything we spec would pertain to annotations within the model,
> right?
>
>
>
> Ray
>
>
>
> *From:* jgjett@gmail.com [mailto:jgjett@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Jacob
> Jett
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:34 PM
> *To:* Web Annotation
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: multiple bodies and motivations
>
>
>
> -1 for this. I think it's already well-documented in practice on how to
> extend vocabularies. We've been doing it for decades with xml.
>
>
>
> Also, there is very little we can realistically do to mandate how specific
> communities will make extensions for use cases that are outside of the
> annotation model. Since there isn't any mandate that annotation consumers
> understand community specific specializations of the annotation model, its
> highly likely that specialized predicates and extraneous typing or graph
> nodes will probably be ignored by the consumer.
>
>
>
> 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, Mar 18, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov> wrote:
>
> Depends what is meant by “spec any of this”.  The model should specify or
> at least recommend how this should be done.  The actual extensions should
> be developed by the interested communities.
>
>
>
> So how is a role conveyed? There are three possibilities:
>
> 1.       Intermediate resource
>
> 2.       Via property
>
> 3.       Via class
>
> If the body is an RDF resource than a property works fine. But if it is,
> say, an image, it doesn’t.  So a role property won’t work for all cases. I
> think that classing bodies will work for some of the cases.
>
>
>
> In any case the model should provide guidance.  It could say, for example,
> use a role property if possible; if not, use a class, if appropriate; if
> not, create an intermediate resource.
>
>
>
> Ray
>
>
>
> *From:* Randall Leeds [mailto:randall@bleeds.info]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:11 PM
> *To:* Denenberg, Ray; Web Annotation
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: multiple bodies and motivations
>
>
>
> So is there any need for us to spec any of this or should we just leave it
> to the communities to start experimenting with roles on their bodies?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:25 PM Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov> wrote:
>
> Yes, it is recognized (and was mentioned this morning) that the annotation
> itself has  a primary motivation, which is to be expressed as a property of
> the annotation.   * But *I don’t agree with the suggestion if there are
> multiple bodies with different motivations then these should be expressed
> as multiple annotations.  I think perhaps these may be “roles” rather than
> motivations, i.e., what role is a body playing in the annotation.  There
> have been a number of use cases calling for multiple bodies, where
> different bodies play different roles, and where creating separate
> annotations for each body would not be work.  The intermediate resource
> solves the problem, but as you note, it complicates the model.
>
>
>
> And of course (to address Jacob’s point) this would be left to individual
> communities to develop in the form of extensions.  There is no suggestion
> intended that we try to develop the entire taxonomy among ourselves.
>
>
>
> Ray
>
>
>
> *From:* Randall Leeds [mailto:randall@bleeds.info]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 18, 2015 2:41 PM
> *To:* Jacob Jett; Denenberg, Ray
> *Cc:* Web Annotation
> *Subject:* Re: multiple bodies and motivations
>
>
>
> More or less +1 to Jacob.
>
> Other concerns are the open world problem of assigning motivations to the
> body, which may be a resource owned by a different authority than the
> annotation and a semantic issue that the motivation is really a motivation
> for involving the body in the annotation activity rather than a motivation
> for the existence of the body resource itself.
>
> It seems like the most conceptually sound way to handle it would be to
> have an intermediate resource. That definitely complicates the model.
>
> I think it was suggested in GitHub that perhaps even if the bodies have
> different purposes the annotation itself has a primary, over-arching
> motivation and if it seems like there are multiple perhaps multiple
> annotations is more appropriate.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:12 AM Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi Ray,
>
>
>
> My question would be, are we conflating motivation with structural
> implications? That a thing is a tag seems to me to say more about its
> intrinsic nature, i.e., a tag is a sort snippet of text, a semantic tag is
> a named entity, rather than the role it plays in the annotation. That being
> said I do think that there is likely room in the model for a motivation (or
> more properly a role) property on the body.
>
>
>
> We may want to be cautious here because there will likely be cases where
> the role a body plays in an annotation is sensitive to the environment the
> annotation finds itself in. In some environments some text might be
> explaining the target and in others it might be describing it. Since the
> model is extensible it might be best to leave it to individual communities
> to develop value added extensions particular to their annotation
> repositories rather than try to develop an over-arching taxonomy of body
> types that will likely be incomplete.
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
>
> 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, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov> wrote:
>
> We ran out of time while I was on-Q so I’ll carry my thoughts to email.
>
>
>
> The issue is multiple bodies with multiple motivations. In the model
> currently,   a  motivation, applies to the entire annotation. How do you
>  associate a motivation with a  body.
>
>
>
> It seems to me that a straightforward approach is for each body to have a
> class  (with implied motivation).   Someone mentioned, if it’s a tag, you
> know it’s a tag. If it’s a sematic tag, you know it’s a semantic tag.  How
> do you know? Because the body is classed as oa:Tag or oa:SemanticTag.   So
> it works for those two, why wouldn’t that work in general?
>
>
>
> Ray
>
>
>
>
>