- From: Leyla Jael García Castro <leylajael@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 15:36:32 +0000
- To: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Message-ID: <CACLxDV6U=eipfAxp4ghMwXPZd_skhSrjA1++6EE3ab9rQDnXjA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Paolo, Thanks! I understand better now. In both cases, with tags and semantic tags, I am assigning some kind of category or identification to the resource but in the case of semantic tags I use entities rather than plain text. In the example ( http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/wiki/SE_Semantically_Tagging_an_Image), ex:anno oa:motivation oa:Tagging is missing in the RDF, is not it? And it should be ex:anno and not ex:Anno in the RDF as well. If I want to specify the exact intended relation, not necessarily with semantic tags but in general, how could it be achieved thorough annotations? Would that be a case for annotation/conversations? Or annotations on annotations? Let's say I am reading an article (A1) and I find a method/material/whatever that I know have been criticized in the background section in a different article (A2). It is not a motivation because "criticizing" is not the annotator's intention but the relation between the body and the target. How could I model that with OA? The idea would be something like: <anno1> a oa:Annotation ; oa:hasBody <spbody1> ; oa:hasTarget <sptarget1> ; xxx:intendedRelation "criticizes". ##how to model this? <spbody1> a oa:SpecificResource ; oa:hasSource <URL for article A2> . <sptarget1> a oa:SpecificResource ; oa:hasSource <URL for article A1> . If "criticizes" comes from an ontology, then I could have something like <anno1> a oa:Annotation ; oa:hasBody <spbody1> ; oa:hasTarget <sptarget1> . <spbody1> a oa:SpecificResource ; oa:hasSource <URL for article A2> . <sptarget1> a oa:SpecificResource ; oa:hasSource <URL for article A1> . <anno2> a oa:Annotation ; oa:hasBody <URI for term criticizes in some ontology> ; oa:hasTarget <anno1> ; oa:motivatedBy oa:Tagging. <URI for term criticizes in some ontology> a oa:Tag . Even if "criticizes" does not come from an ontology, I still can use a plain text tag on <anno1> but I am not sure tag or semantic tag would be the way. Maybe "specify relation" or kind of would be a motivation for annotations on annotations? Cheers, Leyla On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>wrote: > Leyla, > I've updated the description to better reflect that: > > http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/wiki/SE_Semantically_Tagging_an_Image > > Let me know if that is better or if it is still confusing. > Paolo > > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> Hi Leyla, >> we have been discussed about that issue and we tried to explain it in the >> Introduction: >> http://www.openannotation.org/spec/future/#Introduction >> >> "An annotation is considered to be a set of connected resources, >> typically including a body and target, and conveys that the body is related >> to the target. The exact nature of this relationship changes according to >> the intention of the annotation, but most frequently conveys that the body >> is somehow "about" the target. Other possible relationships include that >> the body is an identifier for the target, provides a representation of the >> target, or classifies the target in some way." >> >> In other words, while in annotations such as comments you can say that >> the body is somehow about the target, with a semantic tag I would say we >> 'classify' the target. >> >> Does this help? >> >> Paolo >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Leyla Jael García Castro < >> leylajael@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> My doubt has probably been already solved in some thread but did not >>> find it. >>> I just saw the semantic tag example at >>> http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/wiki/SE_Semantically_Tagging_an_Image >>> >>> What would be the relation between the tagged image and the dbpedia >>> entity used as semantic tag? In some how I have the subject (it would be >>> the target of the annotation) and the object (it would be the body of the >>> annotation), but what would be the predicate? >>> >>> Understanding that could maybe help me to better follow the discussion >>> about the semantic tags. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Leyla >>> On Feb 1, 2013 6:39 PM, "Paolo Ciccarese" <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> No doubt that is elegant solution with respect of the rest of the model. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Paolo Ciccarese >>>>> <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> > On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Robert Sanderson < >>>>> azaroth42@gmail.com> >>>>> >>>>> >> > So how about recommending to do #tag on the URI of the page? >>>>> >> > Like: http://omim.org/entry/104760#tag >>>>> >> > Again, not ideal but it could help. No? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> This is what we recommend already, using a different URI and >>>>> linking >>>>> >> it to the document :) >>>>> > >>>>> > Wait, that is exactly my point. Not 'a different URI' in general, >>>>> that would >>>>> > create a mess I believe. >>>>> > How do we feel in pushing for a specific way of using "the different >>>>> URI" >>>>> > #something? >>>>> >>>>> I don't like it, especially with the clarification in RDF 1.1 that >>>>> fragments identify the element within the hosting format, not a >>>>> semantic resource. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-fragID >>>>> >>>>> So if there was a "tag" in the underlying document, then it would >>>>> refer to that, not the use of the URI as a semantic tag. It still has >>>>> the same collision problems. >>>>> >>>>> The clean way, IMO, is: >>>>> >>>>> <anno1> a oa:Annotation ; >>>>> oa:hasBody <tagSpRes1> ; >>>>> oa:hasTarget <target1> . >>>>> >>>>> <tagSpRes1> a oa:SpecificResource , oa:[Semantic]Tag ; >>>>> oa:hasSource <http://omim.org/entry/104760> ; >>>>> >>>>> Which is just a clarification of what we already say in the doc, that >>>>> you mint a new URI and link it to the original URI. >>>>> >>>>> Rob >>>>> >>>> >>>>
Received on Sunday, 3 February 2013 15:37:19 UTC