Re: [Open Annotation] some questions

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