- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 23:58:37 +0100
- To: <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Dear Bob, all After a lot of time I could finally react to your (some very interesting) comments. By the way there's one thing that may be more efficient over email: has anyone seen any data released, using the Content as text model? Besides the one produced by this group, I mean. Best, Antoine > Bernhard has produced an excellent page on the issue wiki > http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/wiki/Textual_Bodies. I > would urge that any discussions continue there. The "history" tab on > that page makes it easy to find out what is evolving, and the "watch" > tab provides email notifications of changes. > > Bob Morris > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Paolo Ciccarese > <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com> wrote: >> Thank you Bernhard! >> Whatever approach we will all decide for, it is good to keep track of all >> these aspects for future reference. >> >> best, >> Paolo >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Bernhard Haslhofer >> <bernhard.haslhofer@cornell.edu> wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I think the current discussion on supporting plain text (literal) bodies >>> in the Open Annotation model is important because there are many real-world >>> annotation use cases that attach such bodies to Web resources (e.g., >>> Flickr). Therefore I spent some time to summarize existing pro and con >>> arguments and came up with possible solutions (with some help from Antoine) >>> for representing plain text (literal) bodies. >>> >>> Here is the Wikipage: >>> http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/wiki/Textual_Bodies >>> >>> Apologies in advance, I tried to find and cite all arguments in the spec >>> and the previous thread as precisely as possible, but might have missed one >>> or the other. So please fix the arguments directly in the wiki. If there are >>> other possible solutions, please add them... >>> >>> It seems that there are two possible solutions at the moment: >>> >>> 1.) Allow Literals for oa:hasBody >>> >>> 2.) Introduce a shortcut property (e.g., oa:hasLiteralBody) for plain text >>> bodies >>> >>> I think both solutions are feasible and meet the goal of "remaining simple >>> enough to also allow for the most common use cases, such as attaching a >>> piece of text to a single web resource", mentioned in the introduction. >>> >>> If I had to choose now, I would probably prefer the first option because I >>> am not (yet) convinced by the counter-arguments and it avoids the >>> introduction of another property. Also, the motivation for using OA in our >>> context (maphub, yuma, etc.) is sharing and exchanging annotation data on >>> the Web and not building a formal knowledge base one can use for >>> inferencing; therefore also allowing literals as bodies could easily be >>> handled by an additional "if body.isLiteral?" condition in any OA parser. >>> >>> However, I understand that inferencing and therefore consistency is rather >>> important for some other use cases, which brings me back to the second >>> option as a possible compromise. >>> >>> Best, >>> Bernhard >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 Sunday, 3 February 2013 22:59:06 UTC