Re: [Open Annotation] some questions

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Christian Morbidoni <> wrote:

> Hi Paolo,
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Paolo Ciccarese <
>> wrote:
>> Christian,
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Christian Morbidoni <
>>> wrote:
>>> Dear Robert, all,
>>> as you 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
>> 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.
> Good! My proposal would be XPointerFragmentSelector, is there a way to
> make it an explicit proposal? :-/

XPointers and also Media Fragments are something already widely used and I
am good with including both these options.

>>> 2) Instead of having FragmentSelectors as resources wouldn't it make
>>> sense to model like this ?
>>> :fragment :hasXPointerFragmentSelector "fragment" .
>>> :fragment :hasSource <> .
>>> It would be a more compact representation and I see no big drawbacks.
>> What is :fragment in your context?
> Sorry, it was not clear . :fragment is a target of an annotation that
> represents a piece of a DOM tree...e.g. a word or a sentence  within a web
> page.

I am not sure what you are suggesting here. Is it to remove the
SpecificResource object from this model?

>>> 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?
> It would be nice to have an agreement on this.
> BTW: what is the current relation among the open annotation specs and the
> Annotation Ontology?

Open Annotation is the result of the merge between OAC and AO. The new
joint specs are meant to supersede both models.

>>> 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
>>> 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.
> I see too different issues:
> 1) Informing the annotation application of the constituent sub-parts
> (named-contents in my jargon) that are included into a web page. In Pundit
> we are assuming compliant web pages to include a markup for this:
> <div class="pundit-content" about="">
>  <!-- HTML goes here. -->
>  <p>This is a named content and contains both text and a picture</p>
>  <img src="" />
>  <p><em>Caption:</em> this is a caption.</p>
> </div>

> 2) Having a specific property that connects an annotation to the web page
> that were displaying the annotated content (e.g. an image, a video a text
> paragraph)  at the time the user created the annotation.

I would focus on issue 2) in relation to the Open Annotation specs.

I am thinking of a couple of possibilities to explore:
1) SpecificResource object could include a property for the context? For
those applications that will not be able to capture that it will still be
possible to relate the annotation to the sub-part.
2) The State could take care of that. But that is not really inline with
the current definition of it.

Rob, any thought on this?


Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2012 14:49:18 UTC