W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > July 2012

Re: [Open Annotation] some questions

From: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:07:30 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFPX2kBe1TcDpbmNihi-S1GWgniEs+2vnMeRmza7ws73DvDe4Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christian Morbidoni <christian.morbidoni@gmail.com>
Cc: public-openannotation@w3.org, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Christian Morbidoni <
christian.morbidoni@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Robert, all,
> as you suggested...here I'am with asking for some clarifications :-)
> 1) We are using xpointers and would like to model using Fragment
> Selectors, however we also would like to support different kinds of media
> fragments (e.g. video, images, etc.). So we would need to have
> specializations as subclasses of oa:FragmentSelector, e.g.
> pundit:XPointerFragmentSelector

I was looking at the section
http://www.openannotation.org/spec/extension/#Selector and we don't mention
subclassing the FragmentSelector. I think it could make sense.
The overall idea is to agree on common shared selectors so any proposal
should be considered.

> 2) Instead of having FragmentSelectors as resources wouldn't it make sense
> to model like this ?
> :fragment :hasXPointerFragmentSelector "fragment" .
> :fragment :hasSource <http://exmaple.org/page1.html> .
> It would be a more compact representation and I see no big drawbacks.

What is :fragment in your context?

> 3) Is there a standard way to represent collections of annotations (in
> Pundit we are calling them notebooks)? Should I use ORE Aggregations? I'm
> not sure it is exactly what I need.. do you know if someone faced this
> issue?

In the OAC model ORE Aggregation were used (am I right Rob?), while in
Annotation Ontology we had a class called AnnotationSet/DocumentAnnotation.
In the current specs we haven't included that topic yet. I recall vaguely
we discussed about it, however, I don't remember the conclusions. Rob do
you recall that?

> 4) In Pundit we assume a web page can include what we call "named
> contents", that are atomic, granular pieces of content that can have
> identifiers ( resolvable URLs). Think about a page that is divided in
> paragraphs. A web representation of that page can include a number of
> paragraphs and explicitly mark them up specifying identifiers (URLs) for
> each of them. Then you could have a different page where some of the
> paragraphs appears, perhaps mixed with other content (e.g. commentary, or
> text taken from other sources, etc.). You can read more at
> http://thepund.it/client.php under "Play nice with Pundit".
> In practice we are using such named contents as targets of our annotations
> (instead of the URL of the enclosing web page), so that we are able to show
> annotations in whatever web page includes those named contents, and
> furthermore, allows us to correctly display the annotation even if the HTML
> around a named content changes. However, we also want an annotation to
> remember the enclosing web page (containing the named content) where it has
> been created. To this end we are using a pundit:hasPageContext relation.
> ... I know this is a bit tricky and I hope I succeeded in explaining it
> :-)
> Do you think this could be relevant to open annotation?

We have been facing these issues in Domeo v1 and we have been adopting a
similar (custom) solution to the once you outlined. I recall other solution
coming from the OAC sphere. As I am going to have the alpha of Domeo v.2
out in September it would be nice to have an agreement on how to do that
within the Open Annotation framework.

> best,
> Christian

Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2012 14:08:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:38:10 UTC