RE: What happened to semantic tagging?

Hi Rob, Benjamin,

Thanks both for your feedback!

Please see my comments and questions below...

Best regards,
Hugo


________________________________
From: Robert Sanderson [azaroth42@gmail.com]
Sent: 06 November 2015 19:39
To: Hugo Manguinhas
Cc: Paolo Ciccarese; W3C Public Annotation List
Subject: Re: What happened to semantic tagging?


As I understand the question, the desire is to differentiate between external resources that have machine readable representations (such as RDF) and those that are human readable (such as HTML)?  This could previously be done with foaf:page and skos:related (which would have needed changing anyway).

I think we still have the mechanics for this in a more consistent fashion: you could add the media types (using dc:format) to the resource, or a class to the source resource of the semantic tag to assert that it's a real world object :)

HM: yes, indeed... I was actually thinking the same when I saw the new pattern... actually, this goes on the direction that Stian had explained in his email: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Sep/0179.html. But, I kind of liked the way it was defined before as it was less verbose since the distinction was made through the property and not by categorizing the range.... on the other hand, having just "source" makes the model simpler.

To extend the example in 4.1:

{
  "id": "http://example.org/anno13",
  "type": "Annotation",
  "body": {
    "type": "SpecificResource",
    "role": "tagging",
    "source": {
      "id": "http://example.org/city1",
      "type": "dbo:City"
  },
  "target": {
    "id": "http://example.org/photo1",
    "type": "Image"
  }
}

HM: In this case, I would be keen on stating the "tagging" motivation at the level of the annotation instead the body. In fact, I see all roles at the level of the body as a sort of categorization (type/class) of that specific resource rather than a reason... in fact, I was wondering if in such situation where motivation is set to "tagging" and no role is defined for the body, will it be enough to just have the range of the "body" containing directly the range of the "source", or does it always need to be a SpecificResource making the indirect link?

Note the importance of using source here rather than id, as the city doesn't have the role of tagging, it's the specific resource -- the use of the city in the annotation.

HM: ...and if role is defined at the top level?

(Editorially, I think the example in 4.1 should have the type: SpecificResource added to make this clearer)

HM: It would be good to know what are the implication in practice of using or not the SpecificResource indirection... or will it resume to whether it is necessary to assert something about the resource which only makes sense in the scope that specific annotation/context.

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 6:16 AM, Hugo Manguinhas <Hugo.Manguinhas@europeana.eu<mailto:Hugo.Manguinhas@europeana.eu>> wrote:
Hi Paolo,

Thanks for your reply!

To be honest I am still a bit ceptic on the introduction of roles to bodies and targets in the new spec since at such level it would be more natural to understand them as a form of classification (using @type) than a motivation/role...

But coming back to the semantic tagging, how can one now distinguish between a "semantic" (machine readable, e.g. dbp) resource and a webpage (previously represented using the foaf:page property)? of course, assuming that the role tagging is used for both cases....

Best regards,

________________________________
From: Paolo Ciccarese [paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com<mailto:paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>]
Sent: 06 November 2015 14:34
To: Hugo Manguinhas
Cc: W3C Public Annotation List
Subject: Re: What happened to semantic tagging?

Hi Hugo,
Semantic tagging is still present but it is achieved through roles, if you look at the list of the changes this is the entry: Align Tags and SemanticTags with roles for body and target.

You might want to look at this section:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-annotation-model-20151015/#roles-for-external-resources

Best,
Paolo


On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 5:29 AM, Hugo Manguinhas <Hugo.Manguinhas@europeana.eu<mailto:Hugo.Manguinhas@europeana.eu>> wrote:
Dear all,

As I was looking through the recently published version of the spec, I noticed that there is no reference to semantic tagging of resources as was in the previous version. I was wondering if it was retracted from the spec, or if there is another way to model it in this spec.

Btw, I have dig up this thread from September that debates some issues around it: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Sep/0184.html, but would like to ask/confirm with you if this was the direction taken...

Thanks in advance!

Best regards,


Hugo Manguinhas
Technical R&D Coordinator

T: +31 (0)70 314 0967<tel:%2B31%20%280%2970%20314%200967>
M:
E: Hugo.Manguinhas@europeana.eu<mailto:Hugo.Manguinhas@europeana.eu>
Skype: hugo.manguinhas


Be part of Europe's online cultural movement - join the Europeana Network Association: http://bit.ly/NetworkAssociation

 #AllezCulture!
Disclaimer: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this email. Please notify the sender immediately by email if you have received this email by mistake and delete this email from your system.




--
Dr. Paolo Ciccarese
Principal Knowledge and Software Engineer at PerkinElmer Innovation Lab
Assistant Professor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School
Assistant in Neuroscience at Mass General Hospital
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5156-2703



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