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

Re: Plain textual bodies - summary of arguments and possible solutions

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 23:58:37 +0100
Message-ID: <510EEB9D.7010908@few.vu.nl>
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.



> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:38:22 UTC