Re: Connecting multiple fragment selectors with individual bodies

Hi Robert,

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>wrote:

> To throw in my 2c...
>
> I think there's a conceptual difference between linking separate
> annotations and grouping them together as a single intellectual
> entity.  If the annotations should always be transferred and used
> together then it seems that the group should have an identity of its
> own, rather than just links between individuals.
>
> Attached is a diagram with a CompositeAnnotation (which could be a
> subClass of rdf:Bag or ore:Aggregation) that groups together two other
> annotations, a tag and a comment, that should be kept together.  It's
> also available at
> http://www.openannotation.org/spec/proposals/composite_annotation.png
>
>
The thinking behind this approach:
>
> *  In a group of (say) 5 annotations rather than just 2, you could
> need 20 relationships (each of the five should link to all of the
> others) to ensure they were all tied together.  This seems clumsy, to
> say the least
>

I like this composite idea, but it works only if the relations between any
pair of these (say) 5 annotations is the same, am I right? In that case,
and trying to avoid those 20 relationships, I guess you would omit the
x:rel between annotations, so, how do you make explicit the relationship
that all of them share? Would it be a property related to the composite?

Cheers,

Leyla

*  The group gets an identity, and thus can be referred to.
> *  The group can have all of the properties of an Annotation for
> provenance, allowing a different agent to create the collection
> compared to creating the individual annotations
> *  It follows the CompositeSpecifier pattern that we already have
> *  It would allow us to get rid of the hasSemanticTag "shortcut"
>
> It does mean minting yet another identifier, but that's what you get
> when you use RDF.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Rob
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Leyla Jael García Castro
> <leylajael@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Paolo, Lutz,
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Paolo Ciccarese <
> paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Lutz,
> >> I tried to depict your example. I stripped out those details that I
> >> thought where not relevant in regards to what you call the
> 'meta-annotation'
> >> and I copied some n3 in the pictures to be brief.
> >
> >
> > Using Paolo's images, @Lutz, if you did not have oax:hasSemanticTag, how
> > would you related those two annotations? I think it is important to
> > understand the kind of relations you are dealing with. Do they come from
> a
> > controlled vocabulary? Do you want users to create a new annotation that
> > relates the other two? In the last case, how do you expect users to
> > "suggest"/"choose" relations?
> >
> >>
> >> I am trying to interpret what you are doing but I am not sure on what
> you
> >> mean. Let me give you an example so you can tell me how close or far I
> am. I
> >> look at a resource and I create a general comment saying 'there are
> several
> >> typos'. Then I create some other annotations - what you call
> sub-annotations
> >> - that, for instance, are detailing all the typos in the document. All
> the
> >> sub-annotations point to a fragment of the document and also point to
> the
> >> general comment as you consider them parts of that.
> >
> >
> > In Paolo's example, would a relationship such as "exampleOf" or
> "subsetOf"
> > make sense? What is your use case for relating annotations?
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Is this similar to what you are trying to do? The use of
> >> oax:hasSemanticTag is certainly very far from what we created it for.
> >>
> >> Rob and Kevin, I am wondering if the oax:basedOn would work here. In
> other
> >> words I have a general comment 'there are several typos' and then
> through
> >> the relationship oax:basedOn I point to the sub-annotations that help me
> >> supporting the general comment.
> >
> >
> > @Paolo, what about this other scenario: I annotate a fragment of a
> document
> > with a note "aim" (note 1) and later another fragment with a note
> "result"
> > (note2). A relationship between them could be note2 supports/addresses
> note
> > 1. In that particular case, I guess oax:basedOn would not work. So,
> could I
> > use a third annotation to establish that statement? It is more or less
> what
> > people do when reading and analyzing documents, you make some notes and
> some
> > times you relate them.
> >
> >>
> >> Also, Lutz, I am not completely sure on your use of dctypes:Dataset.
> Could
> >> you tell me more about it?
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Lutz Suhrbier <l.suhrbier@bgbm.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Leyla and Paolo,
> >>>
> >>> please find attached the export of the very simple model from my
> >>> Annotation JUnit-Test in rdf-xml and N3.
> >>> It simply creates two types of Agents and Institutions, serving as
> >>> annotator and generator of a single "meta" annotation, which include a
> >>> single "sub" annotion which
> >>>
> >>> The annotation is about a source target with the URI
> >>> "urn:guid:BGBM:Bridel+Herbar:Bridel-1-12:1344860699609:http%3A%2F%
> 2Fwww.tdwg.org%2Fschemas%2Fabcd%2F2.06".
> >>>
> >>> The "meta" - annotation URI is
> >>> urn:guid:bgbm:annosys:1344860701104:1344860701104.
> >>> The "sub"annotation outlining the XPath within the source target XML
> >>> document is urn:guid:bgbm:annosys:1344860701292:1344860701292, and
> uses the
> >>> hasSemantic Tag pointing at the enclosing "meta"-annotation.
> >>>
> >>> The specific Target describing the XML Element within source target is
> >>> urn:guid:bgbm:annosys:1344860701296:1344860701296.
> >>> Furthermore, I introduced a XPath selector called <oax:xpath>, which
> >>> simply includes an XPath expression to describe the XML element to be
> >>> annotated.
> >>> The body of each "sub" annotation (XML Element annotation) may
> comprise a
> >>> new value and/or a comment related to the annotated XML element.
> >>>
> >>> I hope, my explication is not too complicated. If you have any
> questions,
> >>> please come back to me.
> >>>
> >>> BTW. As I am quite new to RDF, what tool are you using to visualise all
> >>> the RDF graphs in your documentation ? Protegé ?
> >>
> >>
> >> All the figures you see in the documentation are actually manually
> created
> >> with Omnigraffle.
> >
> > I would also recommend CMaps.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Leyla
> >
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Paolo
> >>
> >>
> >>> Hi Lutz,
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Lutz Suhrbier <l.suhrbier@bgbm.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I am currently trying to adopt OA to an application scenario, which I
> >>>> actually didn't found described here.
> >>>>
> >>>> The plan is to annotate XML documents in a way that the annotation
> >>>> relates one or more XML element values(let's call them
> subannotations),
> >>>> which can be given a domain specific annotation type.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> So, if I understand well, you have one annotation A1 and another one A2
> >>> and you want to create an annotation to relate them? Are you using
> >>> predefined relations? or will you allow people to define the relation
> on the
> >>> fly? for instance, using the body of the annotation as the suggested
> name
> >>> for the relation.
> >>>
> >>> We have worked on a similar scenario but it is not yet compatible with
> >>> OA. Anyway, if you provide some more information, maybe as Paolo
> suggests an
> >>> example, it would make easier to understand better your scenario.
> >>>
> >>> cheers,
> >>>
> >>> Leyla
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> As the target selection of subannotations(XML Elements) can be
> realised
> >>>> by the usage of multiple specific targets in combination with fragment
> >>>> selectors, there is no obvious and standard conform way of assigning
> >>>> individual annotated values(bodies) to the selected targets.
> >>>>
> >>>> Currently, I implemented a workaround by applicating the
> >>>> oax:hasSemanticTag predicate to each subannotation "pointing" at an
> >>>> embracing "meta" annotation.
> >>>> Even though that workaround appears to be doing its job, I am
> wondering
> >>>> 1) if that is the intended way of using hasSemanticTag ?
> >>>> 2) if there is no other standard conform method reflecting that
> scenario
> >>>> which can actually reflect those requirements ?
> >>>>
> >>>> With regard to a potential approach to be integrated within the
> >>>> standard, simply allowing multiple targets and multiple bodies does
> not
> >>>> appear to solve that question adequately, as the relationship between
> the
> >>>> specific target and the body (subannotation) would not be reflected.
> As the
> >>>> crucial point is the relationship between target and body, a target
> >>>> predicate like "hasBody" would be a better approach, at least from my
> >>>> perspective. One may even think about moving the "hasBody" predicate
> from
> >>>> oa:annotation to oa:target, as I see no relevant application of having
> >>>> annotations just consisting of a body without any target ?
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyway, doing so should not hinder any otherwise possible logical
> >>>> construction of annotations, or does it ? Also, it does not preclude
> >>>> annotations having targets pointing at the same body, nor does it
> preclude
> >>>> targets having multiple bodies if the discussion shows that this is
> somewhat
> >>>> useful.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have to mention, that this is my first project using RDF or OA, so
> may
> >>>> be I am in some topic completely misleaded. But I would appreciate if
> my
> >>>> point could be somehow discussed and reflected in an upcoming release
> of the
> >>>> standard.
> >>>>
> >>>> best regards
> >>>> Lutz Suhrbier
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dr. Paolo Ciccarese
> >> http://www.paolociccarese.info/
> >> Biomedical Informatics Research & Development
> >> Instructor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School
> >> Assistant in Neuroscience at Mass General Hospital
> >> +1-857-366-1524 (mobile)   +1-617-768-8744 (office)
> >>
> >> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the
> >> addressee(s), may contain information that is considered
> >> to be sensitive or confidential and may not be forwarded or disclosed to
> >> any other party without the permission of the sender.
> >> If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
> >> immediately.
> >>
> >
>