- From: Martynas Jusevicius <martynas@graphity.org>
- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 15:52:40 +0200
- To: Matteo Casu <mattecasu@gmail.com>
- Cc: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Matteo, if you want annotations interleaving with text, maybe you could use RDFa? Here's one of the first "RDFa annotations" Google hits: http://www.aclweb.org/anthology-new/R/R11/R11-2008.pdf Martynas graphity.org On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Matteo Casu <mattecasu@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you Robert! > > I've just seen what I think is the new draft (february 5th). I will go through it! In the meantime, I'm wondering what you think on the problem of keeping all the annotations of a text in RDF vs. keeping them in a separate store and bind them to entities in the RDF. > > The use case I have in mind is: imagine a book, say The Lord of the Rings. Assume we want to annotate domain information in RDF (characters, actions, etc..) as well as linguistic (or "librarian")-oriented annotations: paragraphs, lines, pages (in order to make citations..), down to lemmas and so on.. > > We could follow the FRBR model and keep in an RDF graph the domain information AND some librarian information. But what about the annotations on text as -- say -- links between a character and the lines on which they appear?Should these be RDF statements? What about the the problem of text duplications in annotations which are not independent (e.g. lemmas and sentences)? > Have you (as a community) a definite idea on this issue or perhaps is something which is still under observation? > > > > > Il giorno 04/feb/2013, alle ore 21:37, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> ha scritto: > >> Hi Matteo, >> >> The Annotation Ontology has merged with Open Annotation Collaboration >> in the W3C community group: >> http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/ >> >> And Paolo is co-chair along with myself. >> >> We're *just* about to release the next version of the Community Group >> draft, so your interest comes at a great time. >> The NIF folk are also part of the Community Group, and we of course >> would encourage your participation as well! >> >> Many thanks, >> >> Rob Sanderson >> (Open Annotation Community Group co-chair) >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:55 AM, Matteo Casu <mattecasu@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi everybody, >>> >>> [my apologies for cross posting -- possibly of interest for both communities] >>> >>> does anybody could point me to the major pros and cons in using the Annotation Ontology [0] [1] vs. the NLP interchange format in the context of annotating (portions of) literary texts? My impression is that when someone is using UIMA, the integration of AO with Clerezza-UIMA could give more comfort wrt NiF. >>> >>> [0] http://code.google.com/p/annotation-ontology/ >>> [1] http://www.annotationframework.org/ >>> [2] http://nlp2rdf.org/about >>> > >
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 13:53:08 UTC