- From: Jacob Jett <jgjett@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:45:57 -0500
- To: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-openannotation@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CABzPtBJoQSB-=jLMcU6V7zqCQRSKvUXmi4XhB-oeEeG4UREnyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Yes, this my thought exactly. Of course I do have some predilections to abusing...I mean pushing specifications to their limits. ;) I'm not actually convinced that this is a fair use of the OA spec but it does seem to be one way a person could add evidence to an annotation without adding a property specifically for communicating evidence, which might be a case of scope creep. Regards, Jacob P.S. When is the next Community Group conference call? Seems like this issue, oa:hasState and some others could use some discussion. On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>wrote: > Hi Jacob, > I've never thought about the use of oax:annotatedIn for targeting one of > the bodies. > However, that seems an interesting use case. > > Is this what you mean? > > _:x a oa:Annotation ; > oa:hasBody <choice1> ; > oa:hasTarget <ny-times-article> . > > <choice1> a oa:Choice ; > oa:default <comment-in-french> ; > oa:item <comment-in-english> ; > oa:item <comment-in-spanish> . > > _:y a oa:Annotation ; > oa:hasBody <body> ; > oa:hasTarget <comment-in-french> ; > oa:annotatedIn _:x . > > After Chicago [1], the decision was to introduce a new predicate: > oax:annotatedIn from a > SpecificResource to any Resource (including a SpecificResource). The idea > was simply to identify > something the user was looking at when performing the annotation. > > That is very easy to understand when I think of an HTML document embedding > other media. > The question is if we want to extend that definition to annotation of > annotation parts. > > Would anybody see a problem is using the property oax:annotatedIn (or the > later proposed > oax:asIncludedIn) for the annotation of annotation parts use case? > > Paolo > > > > [1] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openannotation/2012Oct/0003.html > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Jacob Jett <jgjett@gmail.com> wrote: > >> ...but couldn't this already be done in the model by annotating the >> initial multi-body (oa:Choice) annotation? More specifically, couldn't we >> annotate one of the choices and use the context predicate "oax:annotatedIn" >> to capture the annotating an annotation bit? >> >> It seems like this might be very useful for your use case where, if we >> were to model the different distinct possibilities as one oa:Choice, you >> could then add an annotation targeting one of the objects of an oa:item >> predicate within that choice, e.g., 'this is our default choice and here is >> why', and use oax:annotatedIn to denote that this annotation noting a >> default choice and the reasoning why (i.e., the evidence), was made in the >> context of an oa:Choice. >> >> The modeling is complex but it seems like this would service the needs of >> your use case without adding additional properties to the specification. >> Does that seem sensible? Seems like there are some other ways to do this >> too, including adding additional properties. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jacob >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> A typical use case for us would be a taxonomist's annotation of an >>> image, or of a morphological description, of an organism for which >>> the annotator is offering several different possible distinct species >>> as an identification, but with no ability to say which of those >>> species it may be. In such cases, an "arbitrary" choice on the part >>> of the consumer is not going to be based on preference, but on some >>> kind of scientific evidence which possibly arises from related >>> resources, or even from part of an annotation dialogue. A second >>> annotator, not the Target publisher, who acquires the first >>> annotation might well launch an annotation of the form "In Annotation >>> X, I don't know what species the Target is, but I know it isn't >>> Alternative A, and here's my evidence for that." This is also likely >>> to be a typical biomedical application where the resources are patient >>> examination data and the goal is a medical diagnosis. In fact, >>> taxonomists often refer to the descriptive data that distinguishes one >>> species from another as"diagnostic characters." >>> >>> (Remark: in science, all choices between hypotheses are based on >>> evidence, which is why I'm gathering use cases to make a case for >>> adding Evidence modeling to OA. I'd even go so far as to suggest that >>> \all/ scholarship needs Evidence sooner or later to support its >>> assertions....) >>> >>> Bob Morris >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > The XOR or Choice is to select one and only one of the resources. For >>> > example, if there are three translations of the same comment, a system >>> > should display only one of them as appropriate for the user's >>> > preferences (and potentially allow the user to se the other options). >>> > On the other hand, given an oa:Set of three comments, all three should >>> > be displayed. >>> > >>> > Hope that helps, >>> > >>> > Rob >>> > >>> > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Leyla Jael García Castro >>> > <leylajael@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> Hi Bob, >>> >> >>> >> Do you have a use case for the ao:XOR? Not so sure whether I >>> understand it. >>> >> >>> >> Cheers, >>> >> >>> >> Leyla >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> With respect to the Multiple Resources model[1] that emerged in >>> Chicago >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. It would be nice if the Issues List reflected what Rob's initial >>> >>> proposal morphed into, and the discussion continued there. (Rob: >>> I'll have a >>> >>> try if you want...) >>> >>> >>> >>> 2. oa:Set and probably oa:List can profitably be applied to a >>> collection >>> >>> of oa:Annotations. The use case is actionable annotations that are >>> >>> delivered to remote agents, and upon which collections of expected >>> actions >>> >>> must taken, possibly in a prescribed order. This is particularly >>> needed >>> >>> when actionable annotations will generate response annotations (e.g. >>> "Agent >>> >>> Smart accepted all of your corrections in the oa:Set :mySet1 except >>> the >>> >>> oa:item :mySet1.item10."). If a collection of actionable annotations >>> >>> travels in a disconnected fashion, the annotation publisher can not >>> easily >>> >>> (at all?) convey that a coordinated action is desired. There may be >>> an >>> >>> argument for ao:XOR on collections of annotations also. It's likely >>> that >>> >>> none of these collection types should be restricted to Target, Body, >>> and >>> >>> Specifiers, as is perhaps being suggested in [1] >>> >>> >>> >>> 3. Probably oa:List objects cannot(?) survive being put in a triple >>> >>> store, since order of identified nodes is not defined in the graph. >>> [2] is a >>> >>> proposal to address the issue, but it is unclear how much traction >>> it has. >>> >>> This means that processing order for oa:List will depend on the >>> >>> serialization, not on the RDF. I vaguely recall this was raised in >>> Chicago, >>> >>> perhaps tabled for more discussion. >>> >>> >>> >>> [1] >>> >>> >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openannotation/2012Oct/0004.html#start4 >>> >>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/papers/ws14 >>> >>> >>> >>> Bob Morris >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Robert A. Morris >>> >>> >>> >>> Emeritus Professor of Computer Science >>> >>> UMASS-Boston >>> >>> 100 Morrissey Blvd >>> >>> Boston, MA 02125-3390 >>> >>> >>> >>> IT Staff >>> >>> Filtered Push Project >>> >>> Harvard University Herbaria >>> >>> Harvard University >>> >>> >>> >>> email: morris.bob@gmail.com >>> >>> web: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/ >>> >>> web: http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush >>> >>> http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram >>> >>> === >>> >>> The content of this communication is made entirely on my >>> >>> own behalf and in no way should be deemed to express >>> >>> official positions of The University of Massachusetts at Boston or >>> Harvard >>> >>> University. >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Robert A. Morris >>> >>> Emeritus Professor of Computer Science >>> UMASS-Boston >>> 100 Morrissey Blvd >>> Boston, MA 02125-3390 >>> >>> IT Staff >>> Filtered Push Project >>> Harvard University Herbaria >>> Harvard University >>> >>> email: morris.bob@gmail.com >>> web: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/ >>> web: http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush >>> http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram >>> === >>> The content of this communication is made entirely on my >>> own behalf and in no way should be deemed to express >>> official positions of The University of Massachusetts at Boston or >>> Harvard University. >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Dr. Paolo Ciccarese > http://www.paolociccarese.info/ > Biomedical Informatics Research & Development > Instructor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School > Assistant in Neuroscience at Mass General Hospital > +1-857-366-1524 (mobile) +1-617-768-8744 (office) > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the > addressee(s), may contain information that is considered > to be sensitive or confidential and may not be forwarded or disclosed to > any other party without the permission of the sender. > If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender > immediately. > >
Received on Monday, 29 October 2012 20:47:06 UTC