Re: multiple bodies and motivations

Thanks all for this great discussion!

I agree that it can't be a class on the Body (or Target) -- that's the
issue we solved with the change to the Semantic Tag construction.  The
class would be a global assertion, whereas the body may have different
roles in different annotations.

Multiple annotations is a possibility, but there's a lot of situations
where you want to keep all of the bodies together (such as export from a
bookmarking system, like Firefox, where there's both comments and tags
together).

To add another option into the mix...

Could we simply allow, but not require, hasMotivation to be added to the
SpecificResource class?
Then if it's important to have body-specific motivations, then the model
allows it without introducing any new predicates or nodes, but the majority
of annotations can just have it associated with the Annotation itself, as
per the current model.

Thus add the possibility for the pattern:

<> a oa:Annotation ;
  oa:hasBody _:sp1, _:sp2 ;
  oa:hasTarget <some-uri> .

_:sp1 a oa:SpecificResource ;
  oa:hasMotivation oa:commenting ;
  ... .

_:sp2 a oa:SpecificResource ;
  oa:hasMotivation oa:tagging ;
  ... .


Thoughts?

Rob


On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu> wrote:

> Right. And because the roles of bodies in an annotation relative to the
> targets in that same annotation are contingent on interpretation and
> context I think that it's beyond the scope of our model to remark on them
> beyond what the model already says, i.e., whatever is at the body node is
> playing the role of the body in the annotation. I don't know what more we
> might say that wouldn't actually begin to interfere with annotation
> interoperability.
>
> 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 4:39 PM, 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305