Re: ITS 2.0 example in web annotation

Hey Felix and Ivan,

I think you'd still want to provide some sort of content for the `body` to
a "typical" annotation system that might find your annotation, so that it
could at least display something.

So...maybe...
```
{
  ....
  "body": {
    "motivation": "tagging",
    "content": "translate"
    "itsrdf:*": ... etc...
  }
}
```

However, I still feel like these `itsrdf` properties are in the wrong place
and should be attached to the target. Since `body` is optional anyhow (and
annotation systems which don't find bodies would likely just ignore
them...unless they wanted them), you'd end up with something like this (see
below Felix's example...as it's a revision...):


On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:

> Thank you for the feedback, Ivan. Would it help to add e.g. a motivation,
> e.g. see below:
>
> {
> "@id": "http://example.com/myannotations/a1",
> "@type": "Annotation",
> "target": {
> "source": "http://example.com/myfile.xml",
> "selector": {
> "@type": "FragmentSelector",
> "conformsTo": "http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath/",
> "value": "/itsProcessingInput"
> }
> },
> "body": {
> "motivation": "tagging",
> "itsrdf:translate": "yes",
> "itsrdf:dir": "ltr",
> "itsrdf:withinText": "no",
> "itsrdf:term": "no",
> "itsrdf:localeFilterList": "*",
> "itsrdf:localeFilterType": "included"
> }
> }
>

```
{
  "id": "http://example.com/myannotations/a1",
  "type": "Annotation",
  "target": {
    "type": "SpecificResource",
    "source": "http://example.com/myfile.xml",
    "selector": {
      "type": "FragmentSelector",
      "conformsTo": "http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath/",
      "value": "/itsProcessingInput"
    },
    "itsrdf:translate": "yes",
    "itsrdf:dir": "ltr",
    "itsrdf:withinText": "no",
    "itsrdf:term": "no",
    "itsrdf:localeFilterList": "*",
    "itsrdf:localeFilterType": "included"
  }
}
```

Here's the "bodies are optional" bit:
"There *SHOULD* be 1 or more body relationships or properties associated
with an Annotation but there *MAY* be 0."
http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd/#model

This variation of the example ITS + Web Annotation seems to say the right
things.

Here's what it looks like on the JSON-LD Playground:
http://json-ld.org/playground/#/gist/b7dbd89e5e50cbb2aff1

And in n-quads:
<http://example.com/myannotations/a1> <
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <
http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#Annotation> .
<http://example.com/myannotations/a1> <http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#hasTarget>
_:b0 .
_:b0 <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <
http://json-ld.org/playground/SpecificResource> .
_:b0 <http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#hasSelector> _:b1 .
_:b0 <http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#hasSource> <http://example.com/myfile.xml> .
_:b0 <itsrdf:dir> "ltr" .
_:b0 <itsrdf:localeFilterList> "*" .
_:b0 <itsrdf:localeFilterType> "included" .
_:b0 <itsrdf:term> "no" .
_:b0 <itsrdf:translate> "yes" .
_:b0 <itsrdf:withinText> "no" .
_:b1 <http://purl.org/dc/terms/conformsTo> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath/> .
_:b1 <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <
http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#FragmentSelector> .
_:b1 <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#value>
"/itsProcessingInput" .


...that's easier to read in the playground...sorry it's not in Turtle.

>From what I understand, this makes "more correct" statements about the
SpecificResource vs. a body related to the SpecificResource.

Does that look correct?

Thanks!
Benjamin
--
Developer Advocate
http://hypothes.is/


>
>
> „tagging“ could be seen as subsuming all ITS related annotations.
>
> - Felix
>
>
> Am 19.11.2015 um 06:30 schrieb Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>:
>
> Felix, others,
>
> I just try to locate where the problem might be when combining it with the
> annotation model…
>
> The json file, whether seen as pure JSON  (JSON-LD) is technically
> correct. However, if the annotation gets into a special annotation system,
> that may find itself in an edge case: indeed, the body of the annotation
> does not use *any* of the properties that are defined in the annotation
> model. We would have to check whether there is any constraints defined in
> the model whereby certain things *must* be present ('content', etc). But
> systems might still fall over on such edge cases… Benjamin, Paolo, what
> would your annotation server do?
>
> Thanks
>
> Ivan
>
>
> On 12 Nov 2015, at 19:52, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:
>
> Following the meeting at TPAC and the discussion we had recently on this
> list, I created an example of how a set of ITS 2.0 information stored
> following the web annotation data model could look like:
>
> 1) Counterpart of web annotation: storage of ITS information as markup in
> the XML document itself (note that the annotated document is an XML
> document):
> https://github.com/w3c/itsrdf/blob/master/its-in-markup.xml
> 2) Storage using the web annotation model:
> https://github.com/w3c/itsrdf/blob/master/its-via-web-annotation.json
> (I decided to use the FragmentSelector)
>
> Feedback of course more than welcome.
>
> - Felix
>
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Digital Publishing Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>
>
>
>
>
>