- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 11:58:34 +0100
- To: <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Hi Bob, Impressive digging! But I'm still skeptical. By "released", I indeed meant "triples published somewhere". Something that would have an index like Sindice having more than "0" as result for http://sindice.com/search?q=&nq=%28*%20%3Chttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2011%2Fcontent%23chars%3E%20*%29&fq=&interface=guru Cheers, Antoine > I'm not sure what counts as "released", but the project reported in > [1] uses cnt via its sister "Http in RDF"[2]. They appear to use it > in a fashion rather consistently with a remark in the closing of an > issue [3] in PROV declining to make it part of PROV itself > > > [1] Thomas Steiner et al. "Adding Meaning to Facebook Microposts via a > Mash-up API and Tracking Its Data Provenance" http://bit.ly/UQAziR > > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/HTTP-in-RDF10/ > > [3] ISSUE-171: HTTP in RDF http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/171 > > Bob Morris > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Antoine Isaac<aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: >> 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 Monday, 4 February 2013 10:59:07 UTC