W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > August 2013

Re: OA and provenance

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 10:41:50 -0600
Message-ID: <CABevsUE4XaCyfdM7OuUZKxAqLGS-krs1xKtpa7=mb485bGWotA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
Cc: Leyla Jael García Castro <leylajael@gmail.com>, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Paolo Ciccarese
<paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com> wrote:

> <anno1> a oa:Annotation ;
>   oa:hasBody <uuid1> ;    // PhysicalTextWrittenByDarwin
>   oa:hasTarget <uuid2> ;  // PhysicalTextWrittenByAuthorA
>   oa:motivation oa:commenting ;
>   oa:annotatedBy <darwin> .

> What is the provenance of the digital artifact? Darwin created the physical
> representation.   Who contributed the digital one above?

That would be oa:serializedBy, I think?  Or if you need to be really
specific (Domeo Application vs Student) then you'd have to go into the
full PROV model and create identities for the activities and
resources.  That's the cost of our short cut of not identifying the
graph and document separately from the conceptual annotation.

Which I still agree with, for what it's worth, as these sorts of
situations are not common outside of academic/scholarly sorts of
situations rather than the general case of digital annotation of
digital objects.

The alternative is to create a new shortcut property, like your curatedBy.

> Layla, I think for text mining results/entity recognition you can still have
> one annotation.

I agree in this case, as Agent A doesn't really do anything meaningful.

Received on Monday, 19 August 2013 16:42:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:38:23 UTC