Re: Status on Action-174 ?

>> I still have doubts about Citation as it is used as A Citation of the
Dataset in other works and as a list of materials that are related to the
Dataset. I think that in the second case is not a Citation.

Thank you for your thoughts, details of Citation still need to be worked
out.  If in the second case it is not a citation what would you call it?

Cheers,

Eric

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Laufer <laufer@globo.com> wrote:

> Hi Eric,
>
> I agree with the definitions.
>
> I still have doubts about Citation as it is used as A Citation of the
> Dataset in other works and as a list of materials that are related to the
> Dataset. I think that in the second case is not a Citation.
>
> Best,
> Laufer
>
> 2015-04-24 11:52 GMT-03:00 Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>:
>
> Hi Laufer,
>>
>> Please see my comments to you and look at the current definitions.  If
>> you have other better referenced definitions please make a recommendation.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Eric S
>>
>> My comments to you....
>>
>> >> I think that annotation has a meaning defined by the Web Annotation WG
>> that embraces a whole architecture around the process of aggregating data
>> to a previous data. We have to take a lot of care if we decide to use the
>> term annotation with a different meaning.
>>
>> Agreed.   This is why I've defined Annotation in the Annotation glossary
>> term and Annotation#Motivation in the feedback definition along side SIOC.
>>
>> Annotation:
>> From: Annotation
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-annotation-model-20141211/#annotation> An
>> Annotation is a web resource and should have an HTTP URI. Typically an
>> Annotation has a single Body, which is a comment or other descriptive
>> resource, and a single Target that the Body is somehow "about".
>>
>> Feedback:
>> From: (1) SIOC <http://rdfs.org/sioc/spec/#sec-modules-types>, (2)
>> Annotation#Motivation
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#motivations> (1) A forum used to
>> collect messages posted by consumers about a particular topic. Messages can
>> include replies to other consumers. Datetime stamps are associated with
>> each message and the messages can be associated with a person or submitted
>> anonymously. (2) To better understand why annotation (See Annotation) was
>> created SKOS <http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/> is used to show
>> inter-related annotation between communities with more meaningful
>> distinctions than a simple class/subclass tree.
>>
>> >> Citation is also a word that has a strong established meaning. It is a
>> reference from one work to a previous one. I understand and agree that is
>> valuable to have a list of other materials that use a Dataset but, IMO, I
>> would not call this as citations (they are a kind of rdfs:seeAlso). I think
>> we have to separate this two things: a reference that a material makes to
>> the Dataset, and references that the Dataset makes to other materials
>>
>> Currently I'm using the definition in CiTO for citation
>>
>> CitationFrom: CiTO
>> <http://www.essepuntato.it/lode/http://purl.org/spar/cito> May be either
>> direct and explicit (as in the reference list of a journal article),
>> indirect (e.g. a citation to a more recent paper by the same research group
>> on the same topic), or implicit (e.g. as in artistic quotations or
>> parodies, or in cases of plagiarism).
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 7:39 AM, Laufer <laufer@globo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Eric, please correct me if I am wrong.
>>>
>>> As I can understand from the diagram, the DUV is being split in two
>>> parts, directions, help, on how to use the Dataset (annotations), and
>>> stories of use of the Dataset by the community (feedback). Before use and
>>> after use.
>>>
>>> These two terms, annotation and feedback, could have many
>>> interpretations.
>>>
>>> I think that annotation has a meaning defined by the Web Annotation WG
>>> that embraces a whole architecture around the process of aggregating data
>>> to a previous data. We have to take a lot of care if we decide to use the
>>> term annotation with a different meaning.
>>>
>>> Citation is also a word that has a strong established meaning. It is a
>>> reference from one work to a previous one. I understand and agree that is
>>> valuable to have a list of other materials that use a Dataset but, IMO, I
>>> would not call this as citations (they are a kind of rdfs:seeAlso). I think
>>> we have to separate this two things: a reference that a material makes to
>>> the Dataset, and references that the Dataset makes to other materials.
>>>
>>> 2 cents.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Laufer
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2015-04-24 11:15 GMT-03:00 Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 23, 2015, at 3:50 PM, Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Annette,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> --  I think the other case for citation is providing a link describing
>>>> how you want others to cite it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ah, yes, I do agree with that type of citation. I’d like to restrict
>>>> its use to that case, maybe clarify it as PreferredCitation. In that sense,
>>>> it is not feedback. It is something the publisher provides to consumers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- While the Annotation model does cover it in a very general way thus
>>>>> giving rise to the concern that there might be large interpretations of how
>>>>> I think of feedback solely relying on Annotations, I am attracted to the
>>>>> SIOC feedback model because it was built specifically to represent feedback
>>>>> in forums. By selecting a common model for feedback, I argue that an
>>>>> explicitly declared vocabulary greatly increases the chances of making
>>>>> dataset feedback more discoverable because consumers can correlate and
>>>>> cross reference feedback from different dataset forums using a consistent
>>>>> query pattern.  The Annotation model is so general that cross referencing
>>>>> forums represented in a variety of ways would make discovery of feedback
>>>>> more difficult.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think it’s important to recognize that the annotations work is
>>>> already in W3C space. If there is too much overlap  that we implement
>>>> differently, there will be an internal conflict. That would be a BAD THING
>>>> (TM).
>>>>
>>>> -Annette
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Annette Greiner
>>>> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
>>>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
>>>> 510-495-2935
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> .  .  .  .. .  .
>>> .        .   . ..
>>> .     ..       .
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> .  .  .  .. .  .
> .        .   . ..
> .     ..       .
>