Re: [Open Annotation] some questions

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Christian Morbidoni <
christian.morbidoni@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Paolo,
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Paolo Ciccarese <
> paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Christian,
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> 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 <http://exmaple.org/page1.html> .
>>> 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?
http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/images/specifier_fragmentSelector.png


>
>
>>
>>> 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
>>> 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.
>>
>
> 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="http://example.org/contents/123">
>  <!-- HTML goes here. -->
>  <p>This is a named content and contains both text and a picture</p>
>  <img src="http://example.org/pictires/pictire123.png" />
>  <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?

Paolo