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

Re: [Open Annotation] some questions

From: Christian Morbidoni <christian.morbidoni@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:02:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CAE_W9Bg8NQ7LH3R+BOMfUy=az6vasZZY=-X7S4q=bp+SoS-fjg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leyla Jael García Castro <leylajael@gmail.com>
Cc: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>, public-openannotation@w3.org, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Hi Leyla,

well, the fact is that named content are web resources themselves and at
the same moment can be embedded in other web pages, along with other named
contents. The very same named content can be embedded in more than one
page, that is way I don't think oa:hasSource is the correct way of linking
it to the embedding web page..as "There MUST be exactly 1 oa:hasSource
relationship for each oa:SpecificResource."

best,

Christian

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Leyla Jael García Castro <
leylajael@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> About the "named contents", i.e. parts of a resource that are fully
> identified by means of a URI, see comments below...
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Paolo Ciccarese <
> paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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 see "named contents" in Pundit as specific parts of a document, with
> their own URL (maybe linked to the document by dcterms:hasPar/isPartOf or
> kind of?). So, is it not possible to use an oa:SpecificTarget when those
> pieces are used as the target in an Annotation? In such a way, the
> annotation is connected to the resource that displays the annotated
> content, is not it?
>
>
>> 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
>>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Leyla
>
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2012 08:03:26 UTC

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